On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 16:27, Torsten Duwe <d...@lst.de> wrote: > > > But my main point is: is the required delay always a linear > > > function of the voltage jump? Depending on the dampening and > > > load on the rail this could be an overshoot and settle, no? > > > > > > So I suggest to make that an array with 2 elements: a fixed part > > > and a time per voltage change. Does that make sense? > > > > Just to make it clear - then we do not follow Linux kernel DT bindings. > > The voltage change might have exponential characteristic and/or have > > additional fixed delay time (see patch 7 here). We could re-use some > > properties from Linux bindings for that purpose: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt#L19 > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt#L24 > > I see. But then "static void regulator_set_value_delay(...)" should either > at least have a "ramp" somewhere in its name or it should discover the device > properties on its own, in order to be able to handle regulator-settling-time* > and regulator-enable-ramp-delay as well in the future. (i.e. pass it uc_pdata > instead of uc_pdata->ramp_delay and also let it handle the condition).
Makes sense, so let me add the ramp keyword. I will also mention in comment that other delays are not yet handled. Thanks for feedback! Best regards, Krzysztof _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
