From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@kryo.se>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
"Stephen Warren" <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Gandhar Dighe <gdighe@nvidia.com>,
"Stuart Yates" <syates@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:31:41 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <570370E5.3070901@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160401161121.GZ2350@sirena.org.uk>
On Friday 01 April 2016 09:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:45:21PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Friday 01 April 2016 02:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Is the error in the observed values a function of the capacitance that
>>> we can calcuate here?
>> As per datasheet, There is no direct equation for ramp time deviation when
>> regulator output current cross the regulator current limit.
> OK, so it's really a current limit that's kicking in rather than a ramp
> rate control (though if it's a current limit I'm still not clear why the
> target rate limits where we cap)? Can we do something based on the
> maximum load configured and the current limit? That sounds more generic
> anyway, a current limiting feature is quite common. If we implement the
> current limit interface for the regulator and then specify what the
> maximum load is we should be able to do the calculations you quoted from
> the datasheet I'd have thought (unless I'm missing something).
We are not having any control/configuration for this in this particular
observations. All are set at maximum and still seeing this deviation.
During a DVS transition, the regulators output current will increase by
COUT*dV/dt. In the event that the load current plus the additional
current imposed by the DVS transition, reach the regulators current
limit, the current limit will be enforced. When the current limit is
enforced, the advertised DVS transition rate (dV/dt) will not occur.
Now there is not really equation that how it control dV/dt with required
current vs regulators current limit current limit.
Working with HW team on LDO3 rail, we observed that Vendor recommend the
Cout to 2.2uF. With having this capacitor in rail, we meet the
advertised dv/dt i.e. 100mV/us.
In Our platform, we have used 2x4.7uF for signal conditioning and we
observed dv/dt went by half.
When we changed the output capacitor to 2.2uF, we get exactly what
vendor advertised.
So can we derive the configured value from the ramp time (platform) and
some multiplication factor? If this is not common way then probably
maxim specific as suggested by Bjorn.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-05 8:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-29 14:40 [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: Add support to scale ramp delay based on platform behavior Laxman Dewangan
2016-02-29 14:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] regulator: " Laxman Dewangan
2016-02-29 17:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] regulator: DT: " Bjorn Andersson
2016-03-01 2:23 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-01 3:48 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-02 3:38 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-02 3:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-02 4:35 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-02 6:12 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-15 13:41 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-15 14:48 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-16 11:30 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-19 4:31 ` Bjorn Andersson
2016-03-19 8:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-30 13:29 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-30 18:16 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 7:06 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 16:51 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 17:13 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 17:47 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 17:47 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 18:31 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 18:45 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 18:39 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 18:59 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 18:59 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 19:22 ` Mark Brown
2016-03-31 19:48 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-03-31 20:39 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-01 7:15 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-01 16:11 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-05 8:01 ` Laxman Dewangan [this message]
2016-04-12 1:02 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-12 13:29 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-13 6:53 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-19 10:01 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-19 10:55 ` Mark Brown
2016-04-19 10:56 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-04-19 15:47 ` 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=570370E5.3070901@nvidia.com \
--to=ldewangan@nvidia.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=bjorn@kryo.se \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gdighe@nvidia.com \
--cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=syates@nvidia.com \
/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).