On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:05:43PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Mark: I know you said you were considering writing a better
> regulator_set_voltage_tol() yourself, but I don't know if you've
> already started work on it.
> I'm expecting to maybe have time to take a crack at it in a few weeks
> i
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> As previously discussed the problem is that there can be a *lot* of
> voltages on a modern regulator with fine grained voltage steps and
> tolerances are also used for things like cpufreq where we care about
> performance. We need somethin
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:55:50AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 19 March 2015 at 12:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> > The implementation *should* do that anyway, it's just not trivial to
> > implement in an efficient fashion with the current information we have
> > from drivers.
> The APIs regulator_c
On 19 March 2015 at 12:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:14:11PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
>> Agree. Moreover we need that API to also pick the closest value to
>> target, when trying the range "target->minimum". I also believe it
>
> The implementation *should* do that anyway,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:14:11PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Agree. Moreover we need that API to also pick the closest value to
> target, when trying the range "target->minimum". I also believe it
The implementation *should* do that anyway, it's just not trivial to
implement in an efficient fas
On 19 March 2015 at 05:09, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Ulf,
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> This will get us within .3V of whatever vmmc is. If vmmc is 3.3V, it
>>> will allow vqmmc of 3.0V - 3.6V.
>>>
>>> This _seems_ sane to me and given any sane system design we should
Ulf,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> This will get us within .3V of whatever vmmc is. If vmmc is 3.3V, it
>> will allow vqmmc of 3.0V - 3.6V.
>>
>> This _seems_ sane to me and given any sane system design we should be
>> fine here, I think. I can't see someone designing a
On 17 March 2015 at 11:38, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:23:33AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 16 March 2015 at 16:12, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> > * Try to set the voltage to exactly 1,200,000 uV (1.2V).
>> > * If you can't get 1.2V exactly, a tolerance ("tol") of 100,000 uV
>>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:23:33AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 16 March 2015 at 16:12, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > * Try to set the voltage to exactly 1,200,000 uV (1.2V).
> > * If you can't get 1.2V exactly, a tolerance ("tol") of 100,000 uV
> > (.1V) is OK.
> > * In other words, 1.1V - 1.3V are
On 16 March 2015 at 16:12, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Ulf,
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> + switch (ios->signal_voltage) {
>>> + case MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_120:
>>> + return
>>> mmc_regulator_set_voltage_if_supported(mmc->supply.vqmmc,
>>> +
Ulf,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> + switch (ios->signal_voltage) {
>> + case MMC_SIGNAL_VOLTAGE_120:
>> + return
>> mmc_regulator_set_voltage_if_supported(mmc->supply.vqmmc,
>> + 120, 10);
>
> Is 1V the lowest poss
On 11 March 2015 at 23:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> This adds logic to the MMC core to set VQMMC. This is expected to be
> called by MMC drivers like dw_mmc as part of (or instead of) their
> start_signal_voltage_switch() callback.
>
> A few notes:
>
> * When setting the signal voltage to 3.3V we d
This adds logic to the MMC core to set VQMMC. This is expected to be
called by MMC drivers like dw_mmc as part of (or instead of) their
start_signal_voltage_switch() callback.
A few notes:
* When setting the signal voltage to 3.3V we do our best to make VQMMC
and VMMC match. It's been reporte
13 matches
Mail list logo
