Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

Hi Doug, On 16 April 2014 15:25, Doug Anderson wrote: > Simon, > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> +#define MAX_CTRL_READ_TRIES5 >>> +#define MAX_FET_ENABLE_TRIES 1000 >> >> Gosh that is a lot of tries - should we maybe give up sooner? > > That's actually a squash o

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

Mark, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:34:47PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > Please don't send new patches as replies in the middle of threads, it >> > makes it confusing trying to work out

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:34:47PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Please don't send new patches as replies in the middle of threads, it > > makes it confusing trying to work out which versions of things should be > > applied. > I'm a little c

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

Mark, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:25:24AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs >> wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report >> overcurrent). The most problematic FET was

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

Simon, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> +#define MAX_CTRL_READ_TRIES5 >> +#define MAX_FET_ENABLE_TRIES 1000 > > Gosh that is a lot of tries - should we maybe give up sooner? That's actually a squash of a recent patch. See

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:25:24AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs > wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report > overcurrent). The most problematic FET was the one used for the LCD Please don't send new patches as repl

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

Hi Doug, (take 2) On 16 April 2014 12:25, Doug Anderson wrote: > An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs > wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report > overcurrent). The most problematic FET was the one used for the LCD > backlight on the Samsung ARM Chrom

[PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report overcurrent). The most problematic FET was the one used for the LCD backlight on the Samsung ARM Chromebook (FET1). Problems were especially prevalent when the device was plu