Hi Lokesh,
> Hi Lubomir,
> On Thursday 30 May 2013 07:56 PM, Lubomir Popov wrote:
>> Hi Lokesh,
>>
>> On 30/05/13 16:19, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>> From: Balaji T K <balaj...@ti.com>
>>>
>>> add dra mmc pbias support and ldo1 power on
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Balaji T K <balaj...@ti.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvu...@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-omap5/omap.h | 3 ++-
>>> drivers/mmc/omap_hsmmc.c | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
>>> drivers/power/palmas.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> include/configs/omap5_common.h | 4 ++++
>>> include/configs/omap5_uevm.h | 5 -----
>>> include/palmas.h | 6 +++++-
>>> 6 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>
[snip]
>>> + /* set LDO9 TWL6035 to 3V */
>> LDO9? TWL6035? If this function is used on the DRA7xx boards only (with
>> TPS659038), you should add some comment above.
> Ok ll add the comment.
>>
>>> + val = 0x2b; /* (3 - 0.9) * 20 + 1 */
>> Why not use definitions for the voltage? You could take them from
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/244103/ where some values are
>> defined.
> Yes, Ill rebase this patch on top of your patch and use those defines.
Please be aware that my above mentioned patch has not been reviewed/
tested/acked/nacked/whatever by nobody (except possibly a quick look by
Nishanth Menon, who had some objections). I wrote it when bringing up a
custom OMAP5 board, and most probably it shall not go into mainline in
its current form, if ever. I gave it only as an example of how things
could be done cleaner. Feel free to use the code as you wish, but I'm
afraid that applying it as a patch to your tree and basing upon it might
run you into problems when you later sync with mainline.
Tom, your opinion?
>>
>>> +
>>> + if (palmas_i2c_write_u8(TPS659038_CHIP_ADDR, LDO1_VOLTAGE, val)) {
>>> + printf("tps659038: could not set LDO1 voltage\n");
>>> + return 1;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* TURN ON LDO9 */
>> LDO9?
>>
>>> + val = LDO_ON | LDO_MODE_SLEEP | LDO_MODE_ACTIVE;
>> Bit LDO_ON in all LDOx_CTRL Palmas registers is Read-Only (and reflects the
>> current status of the LDO). While it makes no harm to try writing to it, this
>> may be misleading about actual LDO operation, and anyway has no sense.
> Yes, I see a similar update in your patch for LDO9. ll do the same for
> LDO1 also.
But are you sure that the TPS659038 has the same LDOx_CTRL register layout
as the TWL6035/37? It belongs to the family, yes, but I don't have a
Register Manual for this chip... Hope you have checked.
>
> Thanks
> Lokesh
>>
[snip]
Best regards,
Lubo
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
