Hello Mark,
On 05/31/2018 04:48 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 04:39:10PM -0700, David Collins wrote:
>> The DRMS modes to use and max allowed current per mode need to be
>> specified at the board level in device tree instead of hard-coded per
>> regulator type in the driver. The
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 04:39:10PM -0700, David Collins wrote:
> The DRMS modes to use and max allowed current per mode need to be
> specified at the board level in device tree instead of hard-coded per
> regulator type in the driver. There are at least two use cases driving
> this need: LDOs sha
Hi Doug,
On 05/30/2018 05:34 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:39 PM, David Collins
> wrote:
>> Consider the case of a regulator with physical 10 mA LPM max current. Say
>> that modem and application processors each have a load on the regulator
>> that draws 9 mA. If they each
Hi,
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:39 PM, David Collins wrote:
> Consider the case of a regulator with physical 10 mA LPM max current. Say
> that modem and application processors each have a load on the regulator
> that draws 9 mA. If they each respect the 10 mA limit, then they'd each
> vote for LPM.
Hello Mark and Doug,
On 05/30/2018 09:24 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:12:25AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
No, I'm saying that I don't know why that proper
Hi,
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:12:25AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > No, I'm saying that I don't know why that property exists at all. This
>> > sounds like it's intended to be the am
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:12:25AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, I'm saying that I don't know why that property exists at all. This
> > sounds like it's intended to be the amount of current the regulator can
> > deliver in each mode whic
Hi,
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 07:54:47AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:37 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > I'm confused as to why we are specifying the maximum current the device
>> > can deliver in a given mode in the DT
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 07:54:47AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:37 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm confused as to why we are specifying the maximum current the device
> > can deliver in a given mode in the DT - surely that's a fixed property
> > of the hardware?
> Said a
Hi,
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:37 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:23:20PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> > + qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps = <1 100>;
>
>> Things look pretty good to me now. I'm still hesitant about the whole
>> need to list the mo
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:23:20PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > + qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps = <1 100>;
> Things look pretty good to me now. I'm still hesitant about the whole
> need to list the modes twice (once using the unordered
> "regulator-allowed-modes"
Hi,
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:43 PM, David Collins wrote:
> +
> +Examples
> +
> +
> +#include
> +
> +&apps_rsc {
> + pm8998-rpmh-regulators {
> + compatible = "qcom,pm8998-rpmh-regulators";
> + qcom,pmic-id = "a";
> +
> + vdd-l7-l12
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 07:43:17PM -0700, David Collins wrote:
> Introduce bindings for RPMh regulator devices found on some
> Qualcomm Technlogies, Inc. SoCs. These devices allow a given
> processor within the SoC to make PMIC regulator requests which
> are aggregated within the RPMh hardware blo
Introduce bindings for RPMh regulator devices found on some
Qualcomm Technlogies, Inc. SoCs. These devices allow a given
processor within the SoC to make PMIC regulator requests which
are aggregated within the RPMh hardware block along with requests
from other processors in the SoC to determine th
14 matches
Mail list logo
