* [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change
@ 2021-04-23 7:05 Rajendra Nayak
2021-04-23 15:04 ` Doug Anderson
2021-04-23 15:13 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rajendra Nayak @ 2021-04-23 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: srinivas.kandagatla
Cc: linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, dianders, rbokka, Rajendra Nayak
Fix a missed newline, and update a comment which is stale
after the merge of '5a1bea2a: nvmem: qfprom: Add support for fuse
blowing on sc7280'
No other functional change in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
---
Sending a follow-up patch for these nits since they came in after
the previous patch was already pulled in
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1401964/
drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
index d6d3f24..b7d2060 100644
--- a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
+++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
@@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static const struct qfprom_soc_compatible_data sc7280_qfprom = {
.keepout = sc7280_qfprom_keepout,
.nkeepout = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_qfprom_keepout)
};
+
/**
* qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing() - Undo enabling of fuse blowing.
* @priv: Our driver data.
@@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
}
/*
- * Hardware requires 1.8V min for fuse blowing; this may be
+ * Hardware requires a min voltage for fuse blowing; this may be
* a rail shared do don't specify a max--regulator constraints
* will handle.
*/
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change
2021-04-23 7:05 [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change Rajendra Nayak
@ 2021-04-23 15:04 ` Doug Anderson
2021-04-26 4:18 ` Rajendra Nayak
2021-04-23 15:13 ` Joe Perches
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Doug Anderson @ 2021-04-23 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rajendra Nayak
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla, linux-arm-msm, LKML, Ravi Kumar Bokka (Temp)
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:05 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Fix a missed newline, and update a comment which is stale
> after the merge of '5a1bea2a: nvmem: qfprom: Add support for fuse
> blowing on sc7280'
> No other functional change in this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> Sending a follow-up patch for these nits since they came in after
> the previous patch was already pulled in
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1401964/
>
> drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
> index d6d3f24..b7d2060 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
> @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static const struct qfprom_soc_compatible_data sc7280_qfprom = {
> .keepout = sc7280_qfprom_keepout,
> .nkeepout = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_qfprom_keepout)
> };
> +
> /**
> * qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing() - Undo enabling of fuse blowing.
> * @priv: Our driver data.
> @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
> }
>
> /*
> - * Hardware requires 1.8V min for fuse blowing; this may be
> + * Hardware requires a min voltage for fuse blowing; this may be
> * a rail shared do don't specify a max--regulator constraints
> * will handle.
> */
Thanks for sending these! Is there a reason you didn't do the "else
if" change too?
-Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change
2021-04-23 7:05 [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change Rajendra Nayak
2021-04-23 15:04 ` Doug Anderson
@ 2021-04-23 15:13 ` Joe Perches
2021-04-26 15:11 ` Doug Anderson
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2021-04-23 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rajendra Nayak, srinivas.kandagatla
Cc: linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, dianders, rbokka
On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 12:35 +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> Fix a missed newline, and update a comment which is stale
> after the merge of '5a1bea2a: nvmem: qfprom: Add support for fuse
> blowing on sc7280'
> No other functional change in this patch.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
[]
> @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
> }
>
> /*
> - * Hardware requires 1.8V min for fuse blowing; this may be
> + * Hardware requires a min voltage for fuse blowing; this may be
> * a rail shared do don't specify a max--regulator constraints
so don't?
> * will handle.
> */
but the comment doesn't make much overall sense to me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change
2021-04-23 15:04 ` Doug Anderson
@ 2021-04-26 4:18 ` Rajendra Nayak
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rajendra Nayak @ 2021-04-26 4:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Anderson
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla, linux-arm-msm, LKML, Ravi Kumar Bokka (Temp)
On 4/23/2021 8:34 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:05 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> Fix a missed newline, and update a comment which is stale
>> after the merge of '5a1bea2a: nvmem: qfprom: Add support for fuse
>> blowing on sc7280'
>> No other functional change in this patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>> Sending a follow-up patch for these nits since they came in after
>> the previous patch was already pulled in
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1401964/
>>
>> drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
>> index d6d3f24..b7d2060 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
>> @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static const struct qfprom_soc_compatible_data sc7280_qfprom = {
>> .keepout = sc7280_qfprom_keepout,
>> .nkeepout = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_qfprom_keepout)
>> };
>> +
>> /**
>> * qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing() - Undo enabling of fuse blowing.
>> * @priv: Our driver data.
>> @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Hardware requires 1.8V min for fuse blowing; this may be
>> + * Hardware requires a min voltage for fuse blowing; this may be
>> * a rail shared do don't specify a max--regulator constraints
>> * will handle.
>> */
>
> Thanks for sending these! Is there a reason you didn't do the "else
> if" change too?
Oops, sorry, looks like i didn't scroll all the way down.
Sending a v2 shortly.
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change
2021-04-23 15:13 ` Joe Perches
@ 2021-04-26 15:11 ` Doug Anderson
2021-04-27 2:37 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Doug Anderson @ 2021-04-26 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches
Cc: Rajendra Nayak, Srinivas Kandagatla, linux-arm-msm, LKML,
Ravi Kumar Bokka (Temp)
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 8:13 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 12:35 +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> > Fix a missed newline, and update a comment which is stale
> > after the merge of '5a1bea2a: nvmem: qfprom: Add support for fuse
> > blowing on sc7280'
> > No other functional change in this patch.
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
> []
> > @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * Hardware requires 1.8V min for fuse blowing; this may be
> > + * Hardware requires a min voltage for fuse blowing; this may be
> > * a rail shared do don't specify a max--regulator constraints
>
> so don't?
>
> > * will handle.
> > */
>
> but the comment doesn't make much overall sense to me.
What part of it doesn't make sense, exactly? Basically there's an
external regulator (voltage rail) that can be programmed to a range of
voltages. For simplicity, let's assume 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9 V. That
regulator powers several things on the board / SoC. The places where
the rail is hooked up can function over some range of voltages. Maybe
some of the things it's hooked up with function fine between 1.6V and
1.9 V. Some between 1.6V and 1.8V. Some between 1.8V and 1.9V. For
power savings we generally want the voltage rail to be as low as
possible.
In this case, the efuse hardware (and everything else the rail is
hooked up to) work fine with a lower voltage, except when you're
programming the efuse. When the efuse needs to be programmed then it
needs a higher voltage. Thus, normally, the system is allowed to run
this rail at some lower voltage. Maybe 1.7V. When we want to program,
though, we've got to run it at 1.8V (or something higher on a new
SoC).
In general it's up to the board-level regulator constraints to keep
everything happy. The person designing the board should setup a
minimum and maximum voltage for each rail to make sure that no
components are run at too high of a voltage or too low of a voltage.
Presumably those board-level constraints take into account the voltage
level needed to read the efuse and also take into account the maximum
voltage so we don't damage the efuse.
-Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change
2021-04-26 15:11 ` Doug Anderson
@ 2021-04-27 2:37 ` Joe Perches
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2021-04-27 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Anderson
Cc: Rajendra Nayak, Srinivas Kandagatla, linux-arm-msm, LKML,
Ravi Kumar Bokka (Temp)
On Mon, 2021-04-26 at 08:11 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 8:13 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 12:35 +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> > > Fix a missed newline, and update a comment which is stale
> > > after the merge of '5a1bea2a: nvmem: qfprom: Add support for fuse
> > > blowing on sc7280'
> > > No other functional change in this patch.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
> > []
> > > @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > - * Hardware requires 1.8V min for fuse blowing; this may be
> > > + * Hardware requires a min voltage for fuse blowing; this may be
> > > * a rail shared do don't specify a max--regulator constraints
> >
> > so don't?
> >
> > > * will handle.
> > > */
> >
> > but the comment doesn't make much overall sense to me.
>
> What part of it doesn't make sense, exactly?
max--regulator
I think that should be something like:
Hardware requires a minimum voltage for fuse blowing.
This may be a shared rail so don't specify a maximum.
Regulator constraints will handle (what exactly, it?)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-27 2:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-04-23 7:05 [PATCH] nvmem: qfprom: minor nit fixes, no functional change Rajendra Nayak
2021-04-23 15:04 ` Doug Anderson
2021-04-26 4:18 ` Rajendra Nayak
2021-04-23 15:13 ` Joe Perches
2021-04-26 15:11 ` Doug Anderson
2021-04-27 2:37 ` Joe Perches
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).