[PATCH] arm: dts: fix rk3066a based boards vdd_log voltage initialization

Mark Brown broonie at kernel.org
Thu Sep 22 09:47:52 PDT 2016

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:12:17PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> +Mark

> I realize Mark has been out of the discussion, and what started as a DT
> problem actually turned into a PWM regulator discussion.
> Maybe we should start a new thread.

Probably, you're lucky I even looked at this - the number of irrelevant
patches I get CCed on is such that I'll often delete things that look
irrelevant unread.  I'm unsure what the relevance is, it looks like it's
mainly a discussion about pinctrl?

> As I said, the problem you're describing (pins muxed to the PWM device
> when it should actually stay in gpio+input mode) is not new, and the old
> pwm-regulator and pwm-rockchip implementation (before my atomic PWM
> changes) were behaving the same way.

Why would this make any kind of sense?

> What is new though, is the pwm_regulator_init_state() function [1], and
> it seems it's now preventing the probe of a pwm-regulator device if the
> initial PWM state is not described in the voltage-table.

> The question is, what should we do?

> 1/ Force users to put an entry matching this state (which means
>    breaking DT compat)
> 2/ Put a valid value in drvdata->state even if it's not reflecting the
>    real state
> 3/ Patch regulator core to support an "unknown-selector" return code.

Could someone say what the actual problem was please?  That was a very
long e-mail so I might be missing something but the obvious thing seems
to be to force a state since we'll be doing that when we enable anyway.
Or just not have the voltage table and use it as a continuous regulator.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-rockchip/attachments/20160922/bd12da6f/attachment.sig>

More information about the Linux-rockchip mailing list