From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, govinds@codeaurora.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, swboyd@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ath10k: snoc: relax voltage requirements Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:14:11 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CA+ASDXM0K3dVxg-Q5gJFOQkciLo424p2HtoYgu=AYYCRBfrnCQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=VvaNTqEEC8XuOZ4ekNtPaj-KO3WdENQ6evweMjp8yoew@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:56 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:55 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > I rarely see drivers specify precise voltage requirements like this, but > > if we really have to...let's at least give a little wiggle room. Board > > designs (and accompanying device trees) may not provide exactly the > > voltage listed here, and we shouldn't fail to probe just because of > > this. > > > > Round these ranges down to the nearest volt, and provide a 0.05V margin. > > The regulator should provide its own supported ranges, which will > > helpfully intersect with these ranges. > > > > I would just as well remove these ranges entirely, but if I understand > > correctly, there's some reason that QCOM SoC's like to set zero / > > non-zero voltages. > > Yeah, I'll try to up-prioritize working on making that better > (assuming others like my ideas in that area). Ah, OK, so my understanding is correct? (I feel like I've bumped into this multiple times, but it probably didn't stick because it makes so little sense to me.) > > static struct ath10k_vreg_info vreg_cfg[] = { > > - {NULL, "vdd-0.8-cx-mx", 800000, 800000, 0, 0, false}, > > - {NULL, "vdd-1.8-xo", 1800000, 1800000, 0, 0, false}, > > - {NULL, "vdd-1.3-rfa", 1304000, 1304000, 0, 0, false}, > > - {NULL, "vdd-3.3-ch0", 3312000, 3312000, 0, 0, false}, > > + {NULL, "vdd-0.8-cx-mx", 800000, 850000, 0, 0, false}, > > + {NULL, "vdd-1.8-xo", 1800000, 1850000, 0, 0, false}, > > + {NULL, "vdd-1.3-rfa", 1300000, 1350000, 0, 0, false}, > > + {NULL, "vdd-3.3-ch0", 3300000, 3350000, 0, 0, false}, > > These look fine to me. I find it really funny that this array has all > those load values and they're all 0, but that's not new to your patch. Indeed, funny. It's also funny to have that 'required' field, which is all 'false' -- but that kinda goes to your binding review too: there's an overabundant use of "optional", to avoid defining real requirements on a per-IP basis. Brian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Cc: govinds@codeaurora.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, swboyd@chromium.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ath10k: snoc: relax voltage requirements Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:14:11 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CA+ASDXM0K3dVxg-Q5gJFOQkciLo424p2HtoYgu=AYYCRBfrnCQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=VvaNTqEEC8XuOZ4ekNtPaj-KO3WdENQ6evweMjp8yoew@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:56 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:55 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > I rarely see drivers specify precise voltage requirements like this, but > > if we really have to...let's at least give a little wiggle room. Board > > designs (and accompanying device trees) may not provide exactly the > > voltage listed here, and we shouldn't fail to probe just because of > > this. > > > > Round these ranges down to the nearest volt, and provide a 0.05V margin. > > The regulator should provide its own supported ranges, which will > > helpfully intersect with these ranges. > > > > I would just as well remove these ranges entirely, but if I understand > > correctly, there's some reason that QCOM SoC's like to set zero / > > non-zero voltages. > > Yeah, I'll try to up-prioritize working on making that better > (assuming others like my ideas in that area). Ah, OK, so my understanding is correct? (I feel like I've bumped into this multiple times, but it probably didn't stick because it makes so little sense to me.) > > static struct ath10k_vreg_info vreg_cfg[] = { > > - {NULL, "vdd-0.8-cx-mx", 800000, 800000, 0, 0, false}, > > - {NULL, "vdd-1.8-xo", 1800000, 1800000, 0, 0, false}, > > - {NULL, "vdd-1.3-rfa", 1304000, 1304000, 0, 0, false}, > > - {NULL, "vdd-3.3-ch0", 3312000, 3312000, 0, 0, false}, > > + {NULL, "vdd-0.8-cx-mx", 800000, 850000, 0, 0, false}, > > + {NULL, "vdd-1.8-xo", 1800000, 1850000, 0, 0, false}, > > + {NULL, "vdd-1.3-rfa", 1300000, 1350000, 0, 0, false}, > > + {NULL, "vdd-3.3-ch0", 3300000, 3350000, 0, 0, false}, > > These look fine to me. I find it really funny that this array has all > those load values and they're all 0, but that's not new to your patch. Indeed, funny. It's also funny to have that 'required' field, which is all 'false' -- but that kinda goes to your binding review too: there's an overabundant use of "optional", to avoid defining real requirements on a per-IP basis. Brian _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-18 18:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-10-13 0:55 [PATCH 1/4] ath10k: snoc: remove 'wcn3990' from generic resource handling Brian Norris 2018-10-13 0:55 ` Brian Norris 2018-10-13 0:55 ` [PATCH 2/4] ath10k: snoc: fix unabalanced regulator error handling Brian Norris 2018-10-13 0:55 ` Brian Norris 2018-10-18 17:54 ` Doug Anderson 2018-10-18 17:54 ` Doug Anderson 2018-10-24 22:10 ` Brian Norris 2018-10-24 22:10 ` Brian Norris 2018-10-13 0:55 ` [PATCH 3/4] ath10k: snoc: relax voltage requirements Brian Norris 2018-10-13 0:55 ` Brian Norris 2018-10-18 17:56 ` Doug Anderson 2018-10-18 17:56 ` Doug Anderson 2018-10-18 18:14 ` Brian Norris [this message] 2018-10-18 18:14 ` Brian Norris 2018-10-13 0:55 ` [PATCH 4/4] ath10k: snoc: fix unbalanced clock error handling Brian Norris 2018-10-13 0:55 ` Brian Norris 2018-10-16 23:53 ` Doug Anderson 2018-10-16 23:53 ` Doug Anderson 2018-11-06 16:14 ` Kalle Valo 2018-11-06 16:14 ` Kalle Valo 2018-10-16 23:43 ` [PATCH 1/4] ath10k: snoc: remove 'wcn3990' from generic resource handling Doug Anderson 2018-10-16 23:43 ` Doug Anderson 2018-10-16 23:47 ` Brian Norris 2018-10-16 23:47 ` Brian Norris 2018-11-05 13:04 ` Kalle Valo 2018-11-05 13:04 ` Kalle Valo [not found] ` <20181105130403.93B6560600@smtp.codeaurora.org> 2018-11-05 21:17 ` Brian Norris 2018-11-05 21:17 ` Brian Norris 2018-11-06 16:18 ` Kalle Valo 2018-11-06 16:18 ` Kalle Valo
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CA+ASDXM0K3dVxg-Q5gJFOQkciLo424p2HtoYgu=AYYCRBfrnCQ@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=briannorris@chromium.org \ --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=dianders@chromium.org \ --cc=govinds@codeaurora.org \ --cc=kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=swboyd@chromium.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.