On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 09:58:03AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
>> I am proposing moving the following into OF match data.
>> ti,i2c-slave-address
>> ti,i2c-voltage-register
>> ti,i2c-command-register
>> ti,slew-rate-microvolt
>> ti,step-size
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 09:58:03AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> I am proposing moving the following into OF match data.
> ti,i2c-slave-address
> ti,i2c-voltage-register
> ti,i2c-command-register
> ti,slew-rate-microvolt
> ti,step-size-micro-volts
> ti,voltage-selector-set-bits
> ti,voltage-selec
On 15:47-20130613, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:39:50AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
> > I am having a bit of a difficulty trying to understand your concern
> > here.
>
> Your device tree for this stuff appears to mostly consist of repeating
> the description of the PMIC that
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:39:50AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> I am having a bit of a difficulty trying to understand your concern
> here.
Your device tree for this stuff appears to mostly consist of repeating
the description of the PMIC that we already have - this really doesn't
seem like a g
On 19:01-20130610, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:51:42PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
> > a) Tegra seems to use Lookup Table for sending predefinied voltage
> > values to PMIC. OMAP has no concept of lookup table.
>
> They seem to be doing basically the same thing here, you've
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:51:42PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> a) Tegra seems to use Lookup Table for sending predefinied voltage
> values to PMIC. OMAP has no concept of lookup table.
They seem to be doing basically the same thing here, you've got a linear
map of selector to voltage too AFAIC
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:16:59AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:18:34PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
>> > So, the biggest problem here has been patch 4 (ha
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:16:59AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:18:34PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > So, the biggest problem here has been patch 4 (having to have a hack to
> > deploy this stuff is a bit worry
+Paul.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:18:34PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
> So, the biggest problem here has been patch 4 (having to have a hack to
> deploy this stuff is a bit worrying) plus the general not having a real
> driver thing.
Patch #
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:18:34PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
So, the biggest problem here has been patch 4 (having to have a hack to
deploy this stuff is a bit worrying) plus the general not having a real
driver thing.
> +- ti,i2c-slave-address - I2C slave address of the PMIC
> +- ti,i2c-volta
Texas Instrument's OMAP SoC generations since OMAP3-5 introduced
an TI custom hardware block to better facilitate and standardize
integration of Power Management ICs which communicate over I2C.
In fact, many custom PMICs were designed to be usable over this
interface. On the other hand, generic PM
11 matches
Mail list logo
