lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/8] mmc: core: Add mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()
From
Ulf,

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc - Set VQMMC as per the ios
>> + *
>> + * For 3.3V signaling, we try to match VQMMC to VMMC as closely as possible.
>
> Looking at the code, I don't think this statement is entirely true.
> Isn't it so that we will be trying with a maximum tolerance of 0.3 V
> towards the VMMC voltage level (then fall-back to the complete range)?
> Perhaps you can find a better way to describe that in the change log.

If regulator_set_voltage_triplet() is ever implemented more correctly
then the description here is correct. ...the problem is that
regulator_set_voltage_triplet() is still using the same shortcut that
regulator_set_voltage_tol() was using.


>> +int mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc(struct mmc_host *mmc, struct mmc_ios *ios)
>> +{
>> + int volt, min_uV, max_uV;
>> +
>> + /* If no vqmmc supply then we can't change the voltage */
>> + if (IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> In general vqmmc is considered as an optional regulator and that's
> also how host drivers treat it. So perhaps it would make sense to
> return 0 here instead of an error code or what do you think?

The idea is that since this is intended to be called by
start_signal_voltage_switch() and having no vqmmc should be considered
an error for start_signal_voltage_switch() then it should be an error
here. What do you think?


>> +
>> + /* try to stay close to vmmc at first */
>> + if (!mmc_regulator_set_voltage_if_supported(mmc->supply.vqmmc,
>> + min_uV, volt, max_uV))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + return mmc_regulator_set_voltage_if_supported(mmc->supply.vqmmc,
>> + 2700000, volt, 3600000);

The whole fact that there are two calls here is really just because of
the limitations of the current implementation of
regulator_set_voltage_triplet(). If that implementation is ever fixed
then we'd just need a single call. Probably worth a comment saying
that?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-02 18:41    [W:0.098 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site