Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] regulator: Fix pbias regulator enable

From: Ulf Hansson
Date: Thu Sep 03 2015 - 03:39:56 EST


On 3 September 2015 at 08:50, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote:
> vsel_reg and enable_reg of the pbias regulator descriptor should actually
> have the offset from syscon.
> However after
> "ARM: dts: <platform>: add minimal l4 bus layout with control module
> support"
> vsel_reg and enable_reg started to have the absolute address because
> of address translation that happens due to pbias node made as the
> child node of syscon. This breaks the pbias regulator enable.
> This series adds the 'offset' to be populated in vsel_reg and enable_reg
> in the pbias driver itself.
> Changes from v1:
> *) Fixed Tony's review comments on adding a 'comment' for adding offset in
> the driver and adding a warning for using platform_get_resource.
> *) Added Tony's Acked-by.
> Tested these patches against mmc -next in omap4 panda, omap3 beagle xm,
> dra72 and omap5 uevm
> Kishon Vijay Abraham I (6):
> regulator: pbias: program pbias register offset in pbias driver
> ARM: dts: dra7: use "ti,pbias-dra7" compatible string for pbias
> ARM: dts: omap243x: use "ti,pbias-omap2" compatible string for pbias
> ARM: dts: omap3: use "ti,pbias-omap3" compatible string for pbias
> ARM: dts: omap4: use "ti,pbias-omap4" compatible string for pbias
> ARM: dts: omap5: use "ti,pbias-omap5" compatible string for pbias
> .../bindings/regulator/pbias-regulator.txt | 7 ++-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap2430.dtsi | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 2 +-
> drivers/regulator/pbias-regulator.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++---
> 7 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> --

I have recently queued another patchset [1] for the mmc omap driver
for 4.3 through my mmc tree for which Olof Johansson reported a
regression [2] for Panda ES with multi_v7_defconfig.

Kishon, could you please clarify if $subject patchset solves that
regression reported by Olof? Or perhaps Olof can run a test?

Finally, perhaps it's better if we queue this through my mmc tree
since we would then be able to avoid the regression - if I put
$subject patchset before [1], right? Then I need an ack from Mark for
the regulator patch.
Please tell me if you guys prefer another way.

Kind regards


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at