archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matti Vaittinen <>
To: Mark Brown <>
Cc: "" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: short-circuit and over-current IRQs
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:56:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hello Mark,

Nice to hear from you. :)

On Wed, 2021-01-27 at 12:27 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:01:55PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> > Anyways - I was wondering if this is common thing amongst many
> > PMICs?
> > If yes - then, perhaps some generally useful regulator helper could
> > be
> > added to help implementing the IRQ disabling + scheduling worker to
> > check status and re-enable IRQs? I think it *might* save some time
> > in
> > the future - and help making same mistakes many times :]
> If we've got two that's enough for a helper.  TBH I'm a bit surprised
> that people are implementing hardware that leaves the outputs enabled
> when it detects this sort of error, it's something that's usually an
> emergency that needs shutting off quickly to prevent hardware damage.

I can only speak for BD9576MUF - which has two limits for monitored
entity (temperature/voltage). One limit being 'warning' limit (or
'detection' as data-sheet says), the other being 'protection' limit.

I don't know guys who designed HW - I am located to a remote spot on
the other side of the world and on top of that I am the odd "SW guy" so
it's better to keep me out of the HW R&D decisions and especially the
customers ;) - but I *guess* the idea has been that consumer driver(s)
could do some 'recovery action' at 'warning' limit (which might make
sense for example when temperature is increased to 'high' but not yet
'damaging' - I guess there is something that can be done with
over/under voltages too...) and only kill the power if that doesn't
help and situation (with temperature/voltage) gets worse.

What I don't like is the fact that HW keeps IRQ asserted instead of
having a state machine which would only generate IRQ when condition
changes + status register to read current condition.

I will see if I can cook-up something decent - but as I said, I would
appreciate any/all testing if I get patch crafted :)

Best Regards

  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-27 12:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-27 12:01 Vaittinen, Matti
2021-01-27 12:27 ` Mark Brown
2021-01-27 12:56   ` Matti Vaittinen [this message]
2021-01-27 14:34     ` AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
2021-01-27 14:42       ` Vaittinen, Matti
2021-01-27 16:32       ` Mark Brown
2021-01-28  9:23         ` Vaittinen, Matti
2021-01-28 12:10           ` Mark Brown
2021-01-28 12:49             ` Vaittinen, Matti
     [not found]             ` <>
2021-01-30 15:43               ` AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
2021-02-01  7:14                 ` Matti Vaittinen
2021-02-01 13:17                 ` 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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: short-circuit and over-current IRQs' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).