From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Kamil Konieczny <k.konieczny@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Skip balancing of the enabled regulators in regulator_enable()
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:38:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9268b455-ec66-97e1-909d-f964ac31c0ef@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191008120611.GG4382@sirena.co.uk>
Hi Mark,
On 08.10.2019 14:06, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:01:15PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> On 08.10.2019 13:50, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> This then means that for users that might legitimately enable and
>>> disable regulators that need to be constrained are forced to change the
>>> voltage when they enable the regualtors in order to have their
>>> constraints take effect which seems bad. I'd rather change the the
>>> cpufreq consumers to either not do the enable (since there really should
>>> be an always-on constraint this should be redundant, we might need to
>>> fix the core to take account of their settings though I think we lost
>>> that) or to set the voltage to whatever they need prior to doing their
>>> first enable, that seems more robust.
>> Well, I'm open for other ways of fixing this issue. Calling enable on
>> always-on regulator imho should not change its rate...
> Yes, although there is the whole "don't touch things until a consumer
> tells us to" thing going on. I had expected that this was kicking in
> because we weren't paying attention to the constraints of disabled
> regulators but I can't see the code implementing that any more so I
> guess we removed it at some point (it was always debatable).
Then if I get it right, the issue is caused by the commit 7f93ff73f7c8
("opp: core: add regulators enable and disable"). I've checked and
indeed reverting it fixes Peach Pi to boot properly. The question is if
this is desired behavior or not?
I've CC: Viresh, Kamil and Bartlomiej, here is the link to the beginning
of this thread:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/8/265
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-08 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20191008101720eucas1p2e0d1bca6e696848bf689067e05620679@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
2019-10-08 10:17 ` [PATCH] regulator: core: Skip balancing of the enabled regulators in regulator_enable() Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-08 10:17 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-08 11:50 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 11:50 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 12:01 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-08 12:01 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-08 12:06 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 12:06 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 12:38 ` Marek Szyprowski [this message]
2019-10-08 12:38 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-08 12:47 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 12:47 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 13:24 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2019-10-08 13:24 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2019-10-08 15:02 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-10-08 15:02 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-10-08 16:15 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 16:15 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 17:05 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-10-08 17:05 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-10-08 17:17 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 17:17 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 18:00 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-10-08 18:00 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2019-10-08 18:07 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 18:07 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-09 10:29 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-09 10:29 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-09 14:13 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-09 14:13 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-10 7:29 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-10-10 7:29 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-10-10 10:19 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-10 10:19 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-10 13:55 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-10 13:55 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-17 10:29 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-10-08 15:48 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 15:48 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 16:02 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2019-10-08 16:02 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2019-10-08 16:21 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-08 16:21 ` Mark Brown
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=9268b455-ec66-97e1-909d-f964ac31c0ef@samsung.com \
--to=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=digetx@gmail.com \
--cc=k.konieczny@samsung.com \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=l.stach@pengutronix.de \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).