Re: [PATCH v1 11/30] drm/tegra: dc: Support OPP and SoC core voltage scaling

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 07:59:36PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 11.11.2020 14:55, Mark Brown пишет:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:23:41AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:

> >> I already changed that code to use regulator_get_optional() for v2.

> > That doesn't look entirely appropriate given that the core does most
> > likely require some kind of power to operate.

> We will need to do this because older DTBs won't have that regulator and
> we want to keep them working.

> Also, some device-trees won't have that regulator anyways because board
> schematics isn't available, and thus, we can't fix them.

This is what dummy supplies are for?

> >> Regarding the enumerating supported voltage.. I think this should be
> >> done by the OPP core, but regulator core doesn't work well if
> >> regulator_get() is invoked more than one time for the same device, at
> >> least there is a loud debugfs warning about an already existing

> > I don't understand why this would be an issue - if nothing else the core
> > could just offer an interface to trigger the check.

> It's not an issue, I just described what happens when device driver
> tries to get a regulator twice.

> There was an issue once that check is added to the regulator core code.
> But perhaps not worth to discuss it for now because I don't remember
> details.

So there's no known obstacle to putting enumeration of supported
voltages into the OPP core then?  I'm a bit confused here.

> >> directory for a regulator. It's easy to check whether the debug
> >> directory exists before creating it, like thermal framework does it for
> >> example, but then there were some other more difficult issues.. I don't
> >> recall what they were right now. Perhaps will be easier to simply get a
> >> error from regulator_set_voltage() for now because it shouldn't ever
> >> happen in practice, unless device-tree has wrong constraints.

> > The constraints might not be wrong, there might be some board which has
> > a constraint somewhere for 

> In this case board's DT shouldn't specify unsupportable OPPs.

Ah, so each board duplicates the OPP tables then, or there's an
expectation that if there's some limit then they'll copy and modify the
table?  If that's the case then it's a bit redundant to do filtering
indeed.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature