Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: qcom-rpmh: add support for pm7550 regulators

[Luca Weiss]

On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 6:08 PM CEST, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 7/10/25 4:06 PM, Luca Weiss wrote:
>> On Thu Jul 10, 2025 at 3:03 PM CEST, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 7/9/25 1:56 PM, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>> On Wed Jun 25, 2025 at 4:20 PM CEST, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/25 4:10 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/25 11:18 AM, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>>>>> Add RPMH regulators exposed by Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. PM7550 PMIC.
>>>>>>> It has 6 FTS525 (FT-SMPS) and 23 LDOs with 3 different types.
>>>>>>> L1-L11 are LDO515 LV NMOS, L12-L13 are LDO515 MV PMOS, L14-L23 are
>>>>>>> LDO512 MV PMOS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW everything you said in the commit message is correct, but I'm not
>>>>>> 100% sure how to map these LDO types to the existing definitions
>>>>>
>>>>> OK so found another page (also made sure that the supply maps are
>>>>> indeed OK)
>>>>>
>>>>> SMPS is OK
>>>>> L1-L11 is OK
>>>>> L14-23 is OK
>>>>>
>>>>> L12/13 -> pmic5_pldo515_mv
>>>>
>>>> Based on what are you saying that?
>>>>
>>>> Based on 80-62408-1 Rev. AG for the LDO515, the Output voltage range for
>>>> MV PMOS is "programmable range 1.504-3.544" which matches "pmic5_pldo".
>>>>
>>>> But yes, in the table next to it, it's saying 1.8-3.3V, which matches
>>>> "pmic5_pldo515_mv".
>>>>
>>>> If you're sure, I can update it but the datasheet is a bit confusing.
>>>> Let me know!
>>>
>>> I was looking at the same datasheet as you and took into account both
>>> the LDO type from e.g. Table 3-12 and the output ranges from Table 3-24
>> 
>> But why, looking at table 3-24, is there a mismatch between that text
>> "programmable range 1.504-3.544" and the table on the right saying
>> min 1.8 and max 3.3V?
>> 
>> Programmable range sounds more like what we'd want? No clue...
>
>>>> (3.544 - 1.504) * 1_000_000 / 8_000
> 255.0
>
> I would asssume there's an 8-bit register that holds the value,
> hence the >>>programmable<<< range may be larger

Okay thanks, you've convinced me enough :)

Will send v2 shortly with this updated!

Regards
Luca

>
> Konrad