Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] soc/tegra: regulators: Add regulators coupler for Tegra30

[Dmitry Osipenko]

05.08.2019 11:33, Peter De Schrijver ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 05:39:23PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 02.08.2019 17:05, Peter De Schrijver ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:18:32PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> Add regulators coupler for Tegra30 SoCs that performs voltage balancing
>>>> of a coupled regulators and thus provides voltage scaling functionality.
>>>>
>>>> There are 2 coupled regulators on all Tegra30 SoCs: CORE and CPU. The
>>>> coupled regulator voltages shall be in a range of 300mV from each other
>>>> and CORE voltage shall be higher than the CPU by N mV, where N depends
>>>> on the CPU voltage.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/soc/tegra/Kconfig              |   4 +
>>>>  drivers/soc/tegra/Makefile             |   1 +
>>>>  drivers/soc/tegra/regulators-tegra30.c | 316 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  3 files changed, 321 insertions(+)
>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/soc/tegra/regulators-tegra30.c
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static int tegra30_core_cpu_limit(int cpu_uV)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (cpu_uV < 800000)
>>>> +		return 950000;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (cpu_uV < 900000)
>>>> +		return 1000000;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (cpu_uV < 1000000)
>>>> +		return 1100000;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (cpu_uV < 1100000)
>>>> +		return 1200000;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (cpu_uV < 1250000) {
>>>> +		switch (tegra_sku_info.cpu_speedo_id) {
>>>> +		case 0 ... 1:
>>> Aren't we supposed to add /* fall through */ here now?
>>
>> There is no compiler warning if there is nothing in-between of the
>> case-switches, so annotation isn't really necessary here. Of course it
>> is possible to add an explicit annotation just to make clear the
>> fall-through intention.
>>
> 
> Ah. Ok. Whatever you want then :)

I'll add the comments if there will be a need to re-spin this series.

>>>> +		case 4:
>>>> +		case 7 ... 8:
>>>> +			return 1200000;
>>>> +
>>>> +		default:
>>>> +			return 1300000;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Other than that, this looks ok to me.
>>
>> Awesome, thank you very much! Explicit ACK will be appreciated as well.
> 
> Acked-By: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thank you again! Could you please also clarify whether the ACK is for
this patch only or for all of three patches?