| Message ID | 20220726181133.3262695-1-iskren.chernev@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | PM6125 regulator support | expand |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 21:12, Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev@gmail.com> wrote: > > Add support for PM6125 PMIC which is found on SM4250/6115 SoCs. > > Signed-off-by: Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Adam Skladowski <a39.skl@gmail.com> Please fix the order of sign-offs. With that fixed: Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/regulator/qcom_smd-regulator.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 10:49, Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/26/22 23:36, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 21:11, Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Add support for pm6125 compatible string and add relevant supplies in QCom SPMI > >> regulator documentation. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev@gmail.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Adam Skladowski <a39.skl@gmail.com> > > > > The order of sign-offs seems incorrect. The sender's signature should > > be the last one. > > Sure, will do! > > >> --- > >> .../regulator/qcom,spmi-regulator.yaml | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,spmi-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,spmi-regulator.yaml > >> index 8b7c4af4b551..d8f18b441484 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,spmi-regulator.yaml > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,spmi-regulator.yaml > >> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ maintainers: > >> properties: > >> compatible: > >> enum: > >> + - qcom,pm6125-regulators > >> - qcom,pm660-regulators > >> - qcom,pm660l-regulators > >> - qcom,pm8004-regulators > >> @@ -106,6 +107,24 @@ required: > >> - compatible > >> > >> allOf: > >> + - if: > >> + properties: > >> + compatible: > >> + contains: > >> + enum: > >> + - qcom,pm6125-regulators > >> + then: > >> + properties: > >> + vdd_l1_l7_l17_l18-supply: true > >> + vdd_l2_l3_l4-supply: true > >> + vdd_l5_l15_l19_l20_l21_l22-supply: true > >> + vdd_l6_l8-supply: true > >> + vdd_l9_l11-supply: true > >> + vdd_l10_l13_l14-supply: true > >> + vdd_l12_l16-supply: true > >> + vdd_l23_l24-supply: true > >> + patternProperties: > >> + "^vdd_s[1-8]-supply$": true > > > > Add an empty line please. > > All other if-then blocks don't have newlines, shall I add one between each as > well? Yes, please, in a separate commit.
On 7/27/22 14:57, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 09:11:31PM +0300, Iskren Chernev wrote: > >> Add support for some regulator types that are missing in this driver, all >> belonging to the FTSMPS426 register layout. This is done in preparation >> for adding support for the PM6125 PMIC. > >> + .set_mode = spmi_regulator_ftsmps3_set_mode, >> + .get_mode = spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_get_mode, > > Why are set and get asymmetric? Because the get method, only uses AUTO and HPM, which have the same value for ftsmps3 and ftsmps426 (so there is no need for a new function). >> @@ -1473,7 +1557,7 @@ static const struct spmi_regulator_mapping supported_regulators[] = { >> SPMI_VREG(LDO, HT_P600, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, ht_p600, 10000), >> SPMI_VREG(LDO, HT_P150, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, ht_p150, 10000), >> SPMI_VREG(BUCK, GP_CTL, 0, INF, SMPS, smps, smps, 100000), >> - SPMI_VREG(BUCK, HFS430, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, hfs430, 10000), >> + SPMI_VREG(BUCK, HFS430, 0, 3, HFS430, hfs430, hfs430, 10000), > > The changelog said we were adding support for new types but this looks > like changing an existing type. The code, as written now does a different thing for BUCK, HFS430 (on mainline (ML) and downstream (DS) linked in the commit message). Since DS only supports newer stuff, to be on safe side, I kept existing behavior for rev 0-3 on BUCK(3)+HFS430(10), so at least DS and ML agree on pm6125 completely. The commit [1] that adds support for BUCK+HFS430 might be wrong, or it might be right for the time being (i.e initial revisions had different behavior). I'm CC-ing Jorge. Question is is BUCK+HFS430 on common2 (ftsmps426) or common3 (ftsmps3) or a mix (depending on revision). [1] 0211f68e626f (regulator: qcom_spmi: add PMS405 SPMI regulator, 2019-06-17)
On 7/28/22 14:11, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:14:10AM +0300, Iskren Chernev wrote: >> On 7/27/22 14:57, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 09:11:31PM +0300, Iskren Chernev wrote: > >>>> Add support for some regulator types that are missing in this driver, all >>>> belonging to the FTSMPS426 register layout. This is done in preparation >>>> for adding support for the PM6125 PMIC. > >>>> + .set_mode = spmi_regulator_ftsmps3_set_mode, >>>> + .get_mode = spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_get_mode, > >>> Why are set and get asymmetric? > >> Because the get method, only uses AUTO and HPM, which have the same value >> for ftsmps3 and ftsmps426 (so there is no need for a new function). > > This needs at least a comment. I agree, I think to add the function with the right macros, and comment that it is the same now but might change in the future if support for mode modes is added. >>>> @@ -1473,7 +1557,7 @@ static const struct spmi_regulator_mapping supported_regulators[] = { >>>> SPMI_VREG(LDO, HT_P600, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, ht_p600, 10000), >>>> SPMI_VREG(LDO, HT_P150, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, ht_p150, 10000), >>>> SPMI_VREG(BUCK, GP_CTL, 0, INF, SMPS, smps, smps, 100000), >>>> - SPMI_VREG(BUCK, HFS430, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, hfs430, 10000), >>>> + SPMI_VREG(BUCK, HFS430, 0, 3, HFS430, hfs430, hfs430, 10000), > >>> The changelog said we were adding support for new types but this looks >>> like changing an existing type. > >> The code, as written now does a different thing for BUCK, HFS430 (on >> mainline (ML) and downstream (DS) linked in the commit message). Since DS >> only supports newer stuff, to be on safe side, I kept existing behavior for >> rev 0-3 on BUCK(3)+HFS430(10), so at least DS and ML agree on pm6125 >> completely. > > This needs describing in the changelog, probably you need multiple > paches here since you are making a number of different changes each of > which needs some explanation. > >> The commit [1] that adds support for BUCK+HFS430 might be wrong, or it >> might be right for the time being (i.e initial revisions had different >> behavior). I'm CC-ing Jorge. > > If that's the case perhaps part of this needs to be sent as a fix. The Downstream patch is adding 3 logical types: - LDO_510 -- these have new subtypes, so no existing PMICs are affected - FTSMPS3 -- this has a new subtype (0xb), so no existing PMICs are affected - HFSMPS -- this has the same type and subtype (BUCK+HFS430) as an existing mainline logical type (HFS430), both declaring 0-INF revisions. So if we fully trust the downstream patch, I can make a fix for the existing BUCK+HFS430+0-INF, so it uses the slighly modified mode values. Currently the set mode fn differs in LPM mode (5 in the common2 case and 4 in the common3 case), so if indeed downstream is correct it would mean this regulator (when turned off) was set to an invalid mode (5 has undefined meaning in common3 map) from 2019 onward. On the other hand, if we assume downstream is wrong, then their code sets 4, which actually means RETENTION (not LPM). I really don't know how this could cause trouble. In fact downstream does a bunch of weird stuff, it doesn't "just" set to LPM (like mainline), instead there is complex logic per logical type and "initial mode". Or they're just masking this mistake ;-) TL;DR Jorge's mail is gone, so we can't get info from the original author. Another issue is I can't really test any other PMIC (and even my PMIC I can't turn off most of the regs without loosing critical functionality, and the BUCKs are kinda important :)). So we can: 1. politely ask for somebody with access to the secret sauce to say what is correct, at least according to the docs (with a timeout) 2. assume downstream patch is right, and fix the existing HFS430 regulator 3. maintain the current (patch) behavior, which likely won't affect older PMICs, but is still adhering to DS patch, because it adds support for this particular PMIC, so presumably it was tested and works with it 4. drop the pmic patch and rely on SMD Please advice. In any case if we go with 2 or 3, I can split out this particular (BUCK) part in a separate patch with more information/comments.
On 29/07/22 13:04:57, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:59:03PM +0300, Iskren Chernev wrote: > > > > > > On 7/28/22 14:11, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:14:10AM +0300, Iskren Chernev wrote: > > >> On 7/27/22 14:57, Mark Brown wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 09:11:31PM +0300, Iskren Chernev wrote: > > > > > >>>> Add support for some regulator types that are missing in this driver, all > > >>>> belonging to the FTSMPS426 register layout. This is done in preparation > > >>>> for adding support for the PM6125 PMIC. > > > > > >>>> + .set_mode = spmi_regulator_ftsmps3_set_mode, > > >>>> + .get_mode = spmi_regulator_ftsmps426_get_mode, > > > > > >>> Why are set and get asymmetric? > > > > > >> Because the get method, only uses AUTO and HPM, which have the same value > > >> for ftsmps3 and ftsmps426 (so there is no need for a new function). > > > > > > This needs at least a comment. > > > > I agree, I think to add the function with the right macros, and comment > > that it is the same now but might change in the future if support for mode > > modes is added. > > > > >>>> @@ -1473,7 +1557,7 @@ static const struct spmi_regulator_mapping supported_regulators[] = { > > >>>> SPMI_VREG(LDO, HT_P600, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, ht_p600, 10000), > > >>>> SPMI_VREG(LDO, HT_P150, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, ht_p150, 10000), > > >>>> SPMI_VREG(BUCK, GP_CTL, 0, INF, SMPS, smps, smps, 100000), > > >>>> - SPMI_VREG(BUCK, HFS430, 0, INF, HFS430, hfs430, hfs430, 10000), > > >>>> + SPMI_VREG(BUCK, HFS430, 0, 3, HFS430, hfs430, hfs430, 10000), > > > > > >>> The changelog said we were adding support for new types but this looks > > >>> like changing an existing type. > > > > > >> The code, as written now does a different thing for BUCK, HFS430 (on > > >> mainline (ML) and downstream (DS) linked in the commit message). Since DS > > >> only supports newer stuff, to be on safe side, I kept existing behavior for > > >> rev 0-3 on BUCK(3)+HFS430(10), so at least DS and ML agree on pm6125 > > >> completely. > > > > > > This needs describing in the changelog, probably you need multiple > > > paches here since you are making a number of different changes each of > > > which needs some explanation. > > > > > >> The commit [1] that adds support for BUCK+HFS430 might be wrong, or it > > >> might be right for the time being (i.e initial revisions had different > > >> behavior). I'm CC-ing Jorge. > > > > > > If that's the case perhaps part of this needs to be sent as a fix. > > > > The Downstream patch is adding 3 logical types: > > - LDO_510 -- these have new subtypes, so no existing PMICs are affected > > - FTSMPS3 -- this has a new subtype (0xb), so no existing PMICs are > > affected > > - HFSMPS -- this has the same type and subtype (BUCK+HFS430) as an existing > > mainline logical type (HFS430), both declaring 0-INF revisions. > > > > So if we fully trust the downstream patch, I can make a fix for the > > existing BUCK+HFS430+0-INF, so it uses the slighly modified mode values. > > > > Currently the set mode fn differs in LPM mode (5 in the common2 case and > > 4 in the common3 case), so if indeed downstream is correct it would mean > > this regulator (when turned off) was set to an invalid mode (5 has > > undefined meaning in common3 map) from 2019 onward. > > > > On the other hand, if we assume downstream is wrong, then their code sets > > 4, which actually means RETENTION (not LPM). I really don't know how this > > could cause trouble. In fact downstream does a bunch of weird stuff, it > > doesn't "just" set to LPM (like mainline), instead there is complex logic > > per logical type and "initial mode". Or they're just masking this mistake > > ;-) > > > > TL;DR Jorge's mail is gone, so we can't get info from the original author. > > Jorge moved to foundries.io, copying him in in case he remembers > anything about this. I am sorry, I really dont remember the details. I believe this was part of the QCS404 upstreaming work so it would have been tested not just by us but also by the release team working on the final product. Sorry I cant be of much help, it has been a while. > > > Another issue is I can't really test any other PMIC (and even my PMIC > > I can't turn off most of the regs without loosing critical functionality, > > and the BUCKs are kinda important :)). > > > > So we can: > > 1. politely ask for somebody with access to the secret sauce to say what is > > correct, at least according to the docs (with a timeout) > > 2. assume downstream patch is right, and fix the existing HFS430 regulator > > 3. maintain the current (patch) behavior, which likely won't affect older > > PMICs, but is still adhering to DS patch, because it adds support for > > this particular PMIC, so presumably it was tested and works with it > > 4. drop the pmic patch and rely on SMD > > > > Please advice. > > > > In any case if we go with 2 or 3, I can split out this particular (BUCK) > > part in a separate patch with more information/comments.