Re: [PATCH v5 09/18] arm64: dts: qcom: qrb5165-rb5: model the PMU of the QCA6391

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 13:16, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 8:59 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 07:48:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 7:03 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:32:06PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > > > > +                     vreg_pmu_aon_0p59: ldo1 {
> > > > > +                             regulator-name = "vreg_pmu_aon_0p59";
> > > > > +                             regulator-min-microvolt = <540000>;
> > > > > +                             regulator-max-microvolt = <840000>;
> > > > > +                     };
> >
> > > > That's a *very* wide voltage range for a supply that's got a name ending
>
> Because it's an error, it should have been 640000. Thanks for spotting it.

According to the datasheet, VDD08_PMU_AON_O goes up to 0.85V then down
to 0.59V, which is the working voltage.

VDD08_PMU_RFA_CMN is normally at 0.8V, but goes to 0.4V during sleep.

>
> > > > in _0_p59 which sounds a lot like it should be fixed at 0.59V.
> > > > Similarly for a bunch of the other supplies, and I'm not seeing any
> > > > evidence that the consumers do any voltage changes here?  There doesn't
> > > > appear to be any logic here, I'm not convinced these are validated or
> > > > safe constraints.
> >
> > > No, the users don't request any regulators (or rather: software
> > > representations thereof) because - as per the cover letter - no
> > > regulators are created by the PMU driver. This is what is physically
> > > on the board - as the schematics and the datasheet define it. I took
> >
> > The above makes no sense.  How can constraints be "what is physically on
> > the board", particularly variable constrants when there isn't even a
> > consumer?  What values are you taking from which documentation?
> >
>
> The operating conditions for PMU outputs. I took them from a
> confidential datasheet. There's a table for input constraints and
> possible output values.
>
> And what do you mean by there not being any consumers? The WLAN and BT
> *are* the consumers.
>
> > The cover letter and binding both claimed (buried after large amounts of
> > changelog) that these PMUs were exposing regulators to consumers and the
> > DTS puports to do exactly that...
> >
>
> Yes, but I'm not sure what the question is.
>
> > > the values from the docs verbatim. In C, we create a power sequencing
> > > provider which doesn't use the regulator framework at all.
> >
> > For something that doesn't use the regulator framework at all what
> > appears to be a provider in patch 16 ("power: pwrseq: add a driver for
> > the QCA6390 PMU module") seems to have a lot of regualtor API calls?
>
> This driver is a power sequencing *provider* but also a regulator
> *consumer*. It gets regulators from the host and exposes a power
> sequencer to *its* consumers (WLAN and BT). On DT it exposes
> regulators (LDO outputs of the PMU) but we don't instantiate them in
> C.
>
> Bart



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry