[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] regulator: do not balance regulators without constraints
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:45:06AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 28.05.2020 15:43, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This forces every supply to have something which explicitly manages
> > voltages which means that if one of the coupled supplies doesn't really
> > care about the voltage (perhaps doesn't even have any explicit
> > consumers) and just needs to be within a certain range of another supply
> > then it'll end up restricting things needlessly.

> Frankly, that's exactly what we need for Exynos5422 case. If devfreq
> driver is not enabled/compiled, we want to keep the "vdd_int" volatage
> unchanged. This confirms me that we really need to have a custom coupler
> for Exynos5422 case. It will solve such issues without adding hacks to
> regulator core.

It sounds like you need that or some form of cooperation between the
devfreq and cpufreq drivers.

> > Saravana was trying to do some stuff with sync_state() which might be
> > interesting here although I have concerns with that approach too:

> >

> This still doesn't solve the above mentioned case.

I didn't mean the particular patch, I meant something using the
sync_state() callback.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-29 13:10    [W:0.066 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site