From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751878AbcCBGZQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2016 01:25:16 -0500 Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:6973 "EHLO hqemgate16.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751406AbcCBGZN (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2016 01:25:13 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp08.nvidia.com on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:24:52 -0800 Message-ID: <56D68453.4070401@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:42:35 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: Bjorn Andersson , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior References: <1456756829-2277-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20160229174751.GQ21240@tuxbot> <20160301022326.GC18327@sirena.org.uk> <56D5111E.6090606@nvidia.com> <20160302033833.GV18327@sirena.org.uk> <56D65F7E.3090907@nvidia.com> <20160302043506.GC18327@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20160302043506.GC18327@sirena.org.uk> X-Originating-IP: [10.19.65.30] X-ClientProxiedBy: BGMAIL103.nvidia.com (10.25.59.12) To bgmail102.nvidia.com (10.25.59.11) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 02 March 2016 10:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:05:26AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Wednesday 02 March 2016 09:08 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> You're not trying to scale the value here, you're trying to replace the >>> value because the PMIC is incapable of delivering the advertised ramp >>> rate. Trying to express this as a multiple of the advertised ramp rate >>> is just adding complexity. >> So should we provide absolute ramp value here for platform specific? > Yes, otherwise if the PMIC vendor respecifies their ramp rates to > reflect reality and the driver is updated then your DT will be broken. Then can we have other member for pmic ramp time register configuration via DT. So measured value on platform will be existing ramp-delay and the value which will be configured in PMIC will be via pmic-ramp-delay if provided otherwise use ramp-delay. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:42:35 +0530 Message-ID: <56D68453.4070401@nvidia.com> References: <1456756829-2277-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20160229174751.GQ21240@tuxbot> <20160301022326.GC18327@sirena.org.uk> <56D5111E.6090606@nvidia.com> <20160302033833.GV18327@sirena.org.uk> <56D65F7E.3090907@nvidia.com> <20160302043506.GC18327@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160302043506.GC18327@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Bjorn Andersson , robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, lgirdwood@gmail.com, bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com, swarren@wwwdotorg.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 02 March 2016 10:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:05:26AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Wednesday 02 March 2016 09:08 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> You're not trying to scale the value here, you're trying to replace the >>> value because the PMIC is incapable of delivering the advertised ramp >>> rate. Trying to express this as a multiple of the advertised ramp rate >>> is just adding complexity. >> So should we provide absolute ramp value here for platform specific? > Yes, otherwise if the PMIC vendor respecifies their ramp rates to > reflect reality and the driver is updated then your DT will be broken. Then can we have other member for pmic ramp time register configuration via DT. So measured value on platform will be existing ramp-delay and the value which will be configured in PMIC will be via pmic-ramp-delay if provided otherwise use ramp-delay.