Re: [PATCH] regulator: do not balance regulators without constraints

From: Mark Brown
Date: Fri May 29 2020 - 07:10:37 EST

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:45:06AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 28.05.2020 15:43, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This forces every supply to have something which explicitly manages
> > voltages which means that if one of the coupled supplies doesn't really
> > care about the voltage (perhaps doesn't even have any explicit
> > consumers) and just needs to be within a certain range of another supply
> > then it'll end up restricting things needlessly.

> Frankly, that's exactly what we need for Exynos5422 case. If devfreq
> driver is not enabled/compiled, we want to keep the "vdd_int" volatage
> unchanged. This confirms me that we really need to have a custom coupler
> for Exynos5422 case. It will solve such issues without adding hacks to
> regulator core.

It sounds like you need that or some form of cooperation between the
devfreq and cpufreq drivers.

> > Saravana was trying to do some stuff with sync_state() which might be
> > interesting here although I have concerns with that approach too:

> >

> This still doesn't solve the above mentioned case.

I didn't mean the particular patch, I meant something using the
sync_state() callback.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature