Re: Palmas regulator broken (was Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: TN7: relax some regulators)
From: Alexandre Courbot
Date: Fri Jun 20 2014 - 10:15:19 EST
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08:23-20140620, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> + l-o,
>> http://marc.info/?t=140316427500004&r=1&w=2 full thread
>>
>> Minor change in subject to indicate palmas regulator fail
>>
>> On 18:49-20140620, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> > On 06/20/2014 06:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> > >* PGP Signed by an unknown key
>> > >
>> > >On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:44:46PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>dbabd624d
>> > >>regulator: palmas: Reemove open coded functions with helper functions
>> > >
>> > >>Keerthy, Nishanth, could it be that there is still something wrong with the
>> > >>REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE() definitions?
>> > >
>> > >>This seems to be the cause for our trouble, but the other questions might
>> > >>still stand, in case there is interest in discussing them.
>> > >
>> > >There was a bug fix to the Palmas driver which just went to Linus the
>> > >other day, are you sure this isn't fixed in mainline (or -next, it's
>> > >been in -next for a week or something)?
>> >
>> > If you are talking about
>> >
>> > 6b7f2d82d5
>> > regulator: palmas: Fix SMPS list for 0V
>> >
>> > then it is in my tree. There is actually no difference on
>> > palmas-regulator.c between my tree and the current -next (or Linus'
>> > tree for that instance).
>> >
>> > So it seems to be something else we are dealing with here.
>>
>> Your quote earlier in the thread
>> "
>> _regulator_is_enabled() *also* returns false
>> "
>>
>> Got me curious. Looking at the patch:
>> dbabd624d4eec50b623bab070d1e39a854b2d65c (regulator: palmas: Reemove
>> open coded functions with helper functions)
>> I noticed the following change
>> palmas_is_enabled_smps -> regulator_is_enabled_regmap
>>
>> So I decided to search for enable_reg in palmas-regulator.c and I think
>> it needs valid enable_reg, mask, value for regulator_is_enabled_regmap to work
>> :).
>>
>> Maybe to be sure, we could print the following:
>> PALMAS_SMPS8_VOLTAGE, PALMAS_SMPS8_CTRL, PALMAS_SMPS8_TSTEP,
>>
>> Anyways, I quickly boot tested the following on DRA7evm (which also uses Palmas):
>> [ 1.933939] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
>> [ 1.944210] smps123: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV
>> [ 1.950717] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
>> [ 1.960754] smps45: 850 <--> 1150 mV at 1060 mV
>> [ 1.967048] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
>> [ 1.977072] smps6: 850 <--> 1650 mV at 1060 mV
>> [ 1.983077] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
>> [ 1.992994] smps7: 850 <--> 1030 mV at 1030 mV
>> [ 1.999238] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
>> [ 2.009161] smps8: 850 <--> 1250 mV at 1060 mV
>> [ 2.015304] palmas-pmic 48070000.i2c:tps659038@58:tps659038_pmic: enable_reg = 0x00, mask =0x00
>>
>> It does seem to me that either set_mode also should use core functions
>> OR you still need a palmas specific is_enable, enable/disable functions
>> (contrary to the claim of the patch in question - which I think
>> introduced regressions).
>>
>> Otherwise, completely untested diff below - can you give this a shot?
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
>> index b982f0f..bbfe22f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
>> @@ -964,6 +964,20 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return ret;
>> pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg &
>> PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
>> +
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "enable_reg = 0x%02x, mask =0x%02x\n",
>> + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg,
>> + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask);
>> + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg =
>> + PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE,
>> + palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr);
>> + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask =
>> + PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
>> + /*
>> + * The following completely ignores
>> + * pmic->current_reg_mode[id] (set_mode)
>> + */
>> + pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON;
>> }
>>
>> pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE;
>
> rev 2 of the diff - this does depened on the fact that regulator_desc is
> not memdup-ed by regulator code - that lets us do a bit of a trickery ;)
> - and I dropped the prints.. Unrelated: This makes me wonder why
> palmas_is_enabled_ldo at all?
>
> Keerthy, Mark,
> what do you think of the following (esp the flip of desc value):
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> index b982f0f..f01d9c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c
> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode)
> struct palmas_pmic *pmic = rdev_get_drvdata(dev);
> int id = rdev_get_id(dev);
> unsigned int reg;
> - bool rail_enable = true;
> + bool rail_enable = true, enable_val = true;
>
> palmas_smps_read(pmic->palmas, palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr, ®);
> reg &= ~PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
> @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode)
> reg |= SMPS_CTRL_MODE_PWM;
> break;
> default:
> + enable_val = false;
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> @@ -325,6 +326,11 @@ static int palmas_set_mode_smps(struct regulator_dev *dev, unsigned int mode)
> if (rail_enable)
> palmas_smps_write(pmic->palmas,
> palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr, reg);
> +
> + /* Switch the enable value to ensure this is used for enable */
> + if (enable_val)
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_val = pmic->current_reg_mode[id];
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -964,6 +970,14 @@ static int palmas_regulators_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return ret;
> pmic->current_reg_mode[id] = reg &
> PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
> +
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_reg =
> + PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_LDO_BASE,
> + palmas_regs_info[id].ctrl_addr);
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_mask =
> + PALMAS_SMPS12_CTRL_MODE_ACTIVE_MASK;
> + /* set_mode overrides this value */
> + pmic->desc[id].enable_val = SMPS_CTRL_MODE_ON;
> }
>
> pmic->desc[id].type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE;
Tried this v2 and it seems to do the trick! My panel switches on as expected.
Thanks,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/