| Message ID | 1437070618-21330-5-git-send-email-vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:46:57PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > 88PM860 falls under 88pm800 family of devices, with > additional feature enhancements, like, > - 88pm860 had additional BUCK regulator (BUCK6 and BUCK1B) > - Additional LDO (LDO20) > - different voltage and current capability ...and reverted since this doesn't build as the kbuild test robot reported. :(
On Friday 17 July 2015 03:04 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:46:57PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: >> 88PM860 falls under 88pm800 family of devices, with >> additional feature enhancements, like, >> - 88pm860 had additional BUCK regulator (BUCK6 and BUCK1B) >> - Additional LDO (LDO20) >> - different voltage and current capability > > ...and reverted since this doesn't build as the kbuild test robot > reported. :( > How do you suggest to handle dependency between MFD patch and this patch? Can you merge this into regulator tree? Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 Thanks, Vaibhav
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:12:04AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > Can you merge this into regulator tree? > Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 I need a tag I can pull from Lee.
On Friday 17 July 2015 04:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:12:04AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > >> Can you merge this into regulator tree? > >> Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 > > I need a tag I can pull from Lee. > Great. Lee, It would be helpful, if you could ack below patch, https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 Thanks, Vaibhav
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > On Friday 17 July 2015 04:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:12:04AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > >>Can you merge this into regulator tree? > > > >>Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 > > > >I need a tag I can pull from Lee. > > > Great. > > Lee, > It would be helpful, if you could ack below patch, > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 These patches are yet to be reviewed. I will unmark those patches as important (meaning they will not be reviewed during this iteration). Please resubmit a single patch-set containing all of the dependencies and Mark and I will work it out between us.
On Monday 20 July 2015 01:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday 17 July 2015 04:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:12:04AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: >>> >>>> Can you merge this into regulator tree? >>> >>>> Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 >>> >>> I need a tag I can pull from Lee. >>> >> Great. >> >> Lee, >> It would be helpful, if you could ack below patch, >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 > > These patches are yet to be reviewed. I will unmark those patches as > important (meaning they will not be reviewed during this iteration). > Please resubmit a single patch-set containing all of the > dependencies and Mark and I will work it out between us. > Ok, I have just sent single patch, which has dependency on regulator changes. Please review, ack and queue up. [PATCH-v3] mfd: 88pm80x: Add 88pm860 chip type support https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ Thanks, Vaibhav
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > On Monday 20 July 2015 01:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>On Friday 17 July 2015 04:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>>On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:12:04AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > >>> > >>>>Can you merge this into regulator tree? > >>> > >>>>Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 > >>> > >>>I need a tag I can pull from Lee. > >>> > >>Great. > >> > >>Lee, > >>It would be helpful, if you could ack below patch, > >> > >>https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 > > > >These patches are yet to be reviewed. I will unmark those patches as > >important (meaning they will not be reviewed during this iteration). > >Please resubmit a single patch-set containing all of the > >dependencies and Mark and I will work it out between us. > > > > Ok, > > I have just sent single patch, which has dependency on regulator > changes. Please review, ack and queue up. A little presumptuous, don't you think? ;) > [PATCH-v3] mfd: 88pm80x: Add 88pm860 chip type support > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ So nothing depends on this anymore, right?
On Tuesday 21 July 2015 02:51 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday 20 July 2015 01:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 17 July 2015 04:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:12:04AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Can you merge this into regulator tree? >>>>> >>>>>> Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 >>>>> >>>>> I need a tag I can pull from Lee. >>>>> >>>> Great. >>>> >>>> Lee, >>>> It would be helpful, if you could ack below patch, >>>> >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 >>> >>> These patches are yet to be reviewed. I will unmark those patches as >>> important (meaning they will not be reviewed during this iteration). >>> Please resubmit a single patch-set containing all of the >>> dependencies and Mark and I will work it out between us. >>> >> >> Ok, >> >> I have just sent single patch, which has dependency on regulator >> changes. Please review, ack and queue up. > > A little presumptuous, don't you think? ;) > >> [PATCH-v3] mfd: 88pm80x: Add 88pm860 chip type support >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ > > So nothing depends on this anymore, right? > No, regulato patch depends on this. Mark needs your tag in order to take above patch through regulator tree. Just to clarify more, I have regulator patch which adds support for 88PM860 https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/719 which depends on above patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ Thanks, Vaibhav
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > On Tuesday 21 July 2015 02:51 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>On Monday 20 July 2015 01:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >>>On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>On Friday 17 July 2015 04:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>>>>On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:12:04AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>Can you merge this into regulator tree? > >>>>> > >>>>>>Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 > >>>>> > >>>>>I need a tag I can pull from Lee. > >>>>> > >>>>Great. > >>>> > >>>>Lee, > >>>>It would be helpful, if you could ack below patch, > >>>> > >>>>https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 > >>> > >>>These patches are yet to be reviewed. I will unmark those patches as > >>>important (meaning they will not be reviewed during this iteration). > >>>Please resubmit a single patch-set containing all of the > >>>dependencies and Mark and I will work it out between us. > >>> > >> > >>Ok, > >> > >>I have just sent single patch, which has dependency on regulator > >>changes. Please review, ack and queue up. > > > >A little presumptuous, don't you think? ;) > > > >>[PATCH-v3] mfd: 88pm80x: Add 88pm860 chip type support > >>https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ > > > >So nothing depends on this anymore, right? > > > > No, regulato patch depends on this. > Mark needs your tag in order to take above patch through regulator tree. That's not how we usually do things. However, as this patch is a very simple one, it shouldn't cause too many issues if it were to go in via the Regulator tree. > Just to clarify more, > > I have regulator patch which adds support for 88PM860 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/719 > > which depends on above patch > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ > > Thanks, > Vaibhav >
On Tuesday 21 July 2015 08:43 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday 21 July 2015 02:51 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday 20 July 2015 01:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday 17 July 2015 04:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:12:04AM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you merge this into regulator tree? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Link to MFD - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I need a tag I can pull from Lee. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Great. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lee, >>>>>> It would be helpful, if you could ack below patch, >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/704 >>>>> >>>>> These patches are yet to be reviewed. I will unmark those patches as >>>>> important (meaning they will not be reviewed during this iteration). >>>>> Please resubmit a single patch-set containing all of the >>>>> dependencies and Mark and I will work it out between us. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, >>>> >>>> I have just sent single patch, which has dependency on regulator >>>> changes. Please review, ack and queue up. >>> >>> A little presumptuous, don't you think? ;) >>> >>>> [PATCH-v3] mfd: 88pm80x: Add 88pm860 chip type support >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ >>> >>> So nothing depends on this anymore, right? >>> >> >> No, regulato patch depends on this. >> Mark needs your tag in order to take above patch through regulator tree. > > That's not how we usually do things. > > However, as this patch is a very simple one, it shouldn't cause too > many issues if it were to go in via the Regulator tree. > Thanks for your ack. And I understand your concern, but not sure how would you solve such dependency? Another point which keeps bugging me is, git-bisect. Thanks, Vaibhav >> Just to clarify more, >> >> I have regulator patch which adds support for 88PM860 >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/16/719 >> >> which depends on above patch >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ >> >> Thanks, >> Vaibhav >> >
> >>>>I have just sent single patch, which has dependency on regulator > >>>>changes. Please review, ack and queue up. > >>> > >>>A little presumptuous, don't you think? ;) > >>> > >>>>[PATCH-v3] mfd: 88pm80x: Add 88pm860 chip type support > >>>>https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6826531/ > >>> > >>>So nothing depends on this anymore, right? > >>> > >> > >>No, regulato patch depends on this. > >>Mark needs your tag in order to take above patch through regulator tree. > > > >That's not how we usually do things. > > > >However, as this patch is a very simple one, it shouldn't cause too > >many issues if it were to go in via the Regulator tree. > > > > Thanks for your ack. > > And I understand your concern, but not sure how would you solve such > dependency? We usually share immutable branches, which contain all of the patches in the correct order. > Another point which keeps bugging me is, git-bisect. ... which also mitigates bisect issues.
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/88pm800.c b/drivers/regulator/88pm800.c index 26c277f..e846e4c 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/88pm800.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/88pm800.c @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ #define PM800_LDO17_VOUT (0x1A) #define PM800_LDO18_VOUT (0x1B) #define PM800_LDO19_VOUT (0x1C) +#define PM800_LDO20_VOUT (0x1D) /* BUCK1 with DVC[0..3] */ #define PM800_BUCK1 (0x3C) @@ -57,6 +58,8 @@ #define PM800_BUCK4_2 (0x44) #define PM800_BUCK4_3 (0x45) #define PM800_BUCK5 (0x46) +#define PM800_BUCK6 (0x4A) +#define PM800_BUCK1B (0x4B) #define PM800_BUCK_ENA (0x50) #define PM800_LDO_ENA1_1 (0x51) @@ -92,7 +95,7 @@ struct pm800_regulators { * n_volt - Number of available selectors */ #define PM800_BUCK(match, vreg, ereg, ebit, amax, volt_ranges, n_volt) \ -{ \ +[PM800_ID_##vreg] = { \ .desc = { \ .name = #vreg, \ .of_match = of_match_ptr(#match), \ @@ -122,7 +125,7 @@ struct pm800_regulators { * simpler and faster. */ #define PM800_LDO(match, vreg, ereg, ebit, amax, ldo_volt_table) \ -{ \ +[PM800_ID_##vreg] = { \ .desc = { \ .name = #vreg, \ .of_match = of_match_ptr(#match), \ @@ -142,34 +145,36 @@ struct pm800_regulators { } /* Ranges are sorted in ascending order. */ -static const struct regulator_linear_range buck1_volt_range[] = { +static const struct regulator_linear_range buck_volt_range1[] = { REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(600000, 0, 0x4f, 12500), REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1600000, 0x50, 0x54, 50000), }; /* BUCK 2~5 have same ranges. */ -static const struct regulator_linear_range buck2_5_volt_range[] = { +static const struct regulator_linear_range buck_volt_range2[] = { REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(600000, 0, 0x4f, 12500), REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1600000, 0x50, 0x72, 50000), }; -static const unsigned int ldo1_volt_table[] = { +/* 88pm800: LDO1, 88pm860: LDO19 */ +static const unsigned int ldo_volt_table1[] = { 600000, 650000, 700000, 750000, 800000, 850000, 900000, 950000, 1000000, 1050000, 1100000, 1150000, 1200000, 1300000, 1400000, 1500000, }; -static const unsigned int ldo2_volt_table[] = { +/* 88pm800: LDO2, 88pm860: LDO20 */ +static const unsigned int ldo_volt_table2[] = { 1700000, 1800000, 1900000, 2000000, 2100000, 2500000, 2700000, 2800000, }; -/* LDO 3~17 have same voltage table. */ -static const unsigned int ldo3_17_volt_table[] = { +/* 88pm800: LDO 3~17, 88pm860: LDO 4~18 */ +static const unsigned int ldo_volt_table3[] = { 1200000, 1250000, 1700000, 1800000, 1850000, 1900000, 2500000, 2600000, 2700000, 2750000, 2800000, 2850000, 2900000, 3000000, 3100000, 3300000, }; -/* LDO 18~19 have same voltage table. */ -static const unsigned int ldo18_19_volt_table[] = { +/* LDO 18~19, 88pm860: 1~3 */ +static const unsigned int ldo_volt_table4[] = { 1700000, 1800000, 1900000, 2500000, 2800000, 2900000, 3100000, 3300000, }; @@ -204,31 +209,62 @@ static struct regulator_ops pm800_volt_table_ops = { /* The array is indexed by id(PM800_ID_XXX) */ static struct pm800_regulator_info pm800_regulator_info[] = { - PM800_BUCK(buck1, BUCK1, BUCK_ENA, 0, 3000000, buck1_volt_range, 0x55), - PM800_BUCK(buck2, BUCK2, BUCK_ENA, 1, 1200000, buck2_5_volt_range, 0x73), - PM800_BUCK(buck3, BUCK3, BUCK_ENA, 2, 1200000, buck2_5_volt_range, 0x73), - PM800_BUCK(buck4, BUCK4, BUCK_ENA, 3, 1200000, buck2_5_volt_range, 0x73), - PM800_BUCK(buck5, BUCK5, BUCK_ENA, 4, 1200000, buck2_5_volt_range, 0x73), - - PM800_LDO(ldo1, LDO1, LDO_ENA1_1, 0, 200000, ldo1_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo2, LDO2, LDO_ENA1_1, 1, 10000, ldo2_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo3, LDO3, LDO_ENA1_1, 2, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo4, LDO4, LDO_ENA1_1, 3, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo5, LDO5, LDO_ENA1_1, 4, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo6, LDO6, LDO_ENA1_1, 5, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo7, LDO7, LDO_ENA1_1, 6, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo8, LDO8, LDO_ENA1_1, 7, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo9, LDO9, LDO_ENA1_2, 0, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo10, LDO10, LDO_ENA1_2, 1, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo11, LDO11, LDO_ENA1_2, 2, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo12, LDO12, LDO_ENA1_2, 3, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo13, LDO13, LDO_ENA1_2, 4, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo14, LDO14, LDO_ENA1_2, 5, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo15, LDO15, LDO_ENA1_2, 6, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo16, LDO16, LDO_ENA1_2, 7, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo17, LDO17, LDO_ENA1_3, 0, 300000, ldo3_17_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo18, LDO18, LDO_ENA1_3, 1, 200000, ldo18_19_volt_table), - PM800_LDO(ldo19, LDO19, LDO_ENA1_3, 2, 200000, ldo18_19_volt_table), + PM800_BUCK(buck1, BUCK1, BUCK_ENA, 0, 3000000, buck_volt_range1, 0x55), + PM800_BUCK(buck2, BUCK2, BUCK_ENA, 1, 1200000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + PM800_BUCK(buck3, BUCK3, BUCK_ENA, 2, 1200000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + PM800_BUCK(buck4, BUCK4, BUCK_ENA, 3, 1200000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + PM800_BUCK(buck5, BUCK5, BUCK_ENA, 4, 1200000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + + PM800_LDO(ldo1, LDO1, LDO_ENA1_1, 0, 200000, ldo_volt_table1), + PM800_LDO(ldo2, LDO2, LDO_ENA1_1, 1, 10000, ldo_volt_table2), + PM800_LDO(ldo3, LDO3, LDO_ENA1_1, 2, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo4, LDO4, LDO_ENA1_1, 3, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo5, LDO5, LDO_ENA1_1, 4, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo6, LDO6, LDO_ENA1_1, 5, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo7, LDO7, LDO_ENA1_1, 6, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo8, LDO8, LDO_ENA1_1, 7, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo9, LDO9, LDO_ENA1_2, 0, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo10, LDO10, LDO_ENA1_2, 1, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo11, LDO11, LDO_ENA1_2, 2, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo12, LDO12, LDO_ENA1_2, 3, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo13, LDO13, LDO_ENA1_2, 4, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo14, LDO14, LDO_ENA1_2, 5, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo15, LDO15, LDO_ENA1_2, 6, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo16, LDO16, LDO_ENA1_2, 7, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo17, LDO17, LDO_ENA1_3, 0, 300000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo18, LDO18, LDO_ENA1_3, 1, 200000, ldo_volt_table4), + PM800_LDO(ldo19, LDO19, LDO_ENA1_3, 2, 200000, ldo_volt_table4), +}; + +static struct pm800_regulator_info pm860_regulator_info[] = { + PM800_BUCK(buck1, BUCK1, BUCK_ENA, 0, 3000000, buck_volt_range1, 0x55), + PM800_BUCK(buck2, BUCK2, BUCK_ENA, 1, 750000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + PM800_BUCK(buck3, BUCK3, BUCK_ENA, 2, 1500000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + PM800_BUCK(buck4, BUCK4, BUCK_ENA, 3, 750000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + PM800_BUCK(buck5, BUCK5, BUCK_ENA, 4, 1500000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + PM800_BUCK(buck6, BUCK6, BUCK_ENA, 5, 800000, buck_volt_range2, 0x73), + PM800_BUCK(buck1b, BUCK1B, BUCK_ENA, 6, 3000000, buck_volt_range2, 0x55), + + PM800_LDO(ldo1, LDO1, LDO_ENA1_1, 0, 100000, ldo_volt_table4), + PM800_LDO(ldo2, LDO2, LDO_ENA1_1, 1, 100000, ldo_volt_table4), + PM800_LDO(ldo3, LDO3, LDO_ENA1_1, 2, 100000, ldo_volt_table4), + PM800_LDO(ldo4, LDO4, LDO_ENA1_1, 3, 400000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo5, LDO5, LDO_ENA1_1, 4, 400000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo6, LDO6, LDO_ENA1_1, 5, 400000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo7, LDO7, LDO_ENA1_1, 6, 400000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo8, LDO8, LDO_ENA1_1, 7, 400000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo9, LDO9, LDO_ENA1_2, 0, 400000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo10, LDO10, LDO_ENA1_2, 1, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo11, LDO11, LDO_ENA1_2, 2, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo12, LDO12, LDO_ENA1_2, 3, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo13, LDO13, LDO_ENA1_2, 4, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo14, LDO14, LDO_ENA1_2, 5, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo15, LDO15, LDO_ENA1_2, 6, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo16, LDO16, LDO_ENA1_2, 7, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo17, LDO17, LDO_ENA1_3, 0, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo18, LDO18, LDO_ENA1_3, 1, 200000, ldo_volt_table3), + PM800_LDO(ldo19, LDO19, LDO_ENA1_3, 2, 400000, ldo_volt_table1), + PM800_LDO(ldo20, LDO20, LDO_ENA1_3, 3, 10000, ldo_volt_table2), }; static int pm800_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) @@ -238,6 +274,7 @@ static int pm800_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct pm800_regulators *pm800_data; struct regulator_config config = { }; struct regulator_init_data *init_data; + struct pm800_regulator_info *info = NULL; int i, ret; if (pdata && pdata->num_regulators) { @@ -262,6 +299,18 @@ static int pm800_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pm800_data); + switch (chip->type) { + case CHIP_PM800: + case CHIP_PM805: + info = pm800_regulator_info; + break; + case CHIP_PM860: + info = pm860_regulator_info; + break; + default: + return -ENODEV; + } + config.dev = chip->dev; config.regmap = pm800_data->map; for (i = 0; i < PM800_ID_RG_MAX; i++) { @@ -275,14 +324,14 @@ static int pm800_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) config.init_data = init_data; } - config.driver_data = &pm800_regulator_info[i]; + config.driver_data = &info[i]; regulator = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, - &pm800_regulator_info[i].desc, &config); + &info[i].desc, &config); if (IS_ERR(regulator)) { ret = PTR_ERR(regulator); dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register %s\n", - pm800_regulator_info[i].desc.name); + info[i].desc.name); return ret; } } diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h index 2ef62af..a92d173 100644 --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ enum { PM800_ID_BUCK3, PM800_ID_BUCK4, PM800_ID_BUCK5, + PM800_ID_BUCK6, + PM800_ID_BUCK1B, PM800_ID_LDO1, PM800_ID_LDO2, @@ -51,6 +53,7 @@ enum { PM800_ID_LDO17, PM800_ID_LDO18, PM800_ID_LDO19, + PM800_ID_LDO20, PM800_ID_RG_MAX, };
88PM860 falls under 88pm800 family of devices, with additional feature enhancements, like, - 88pm860 had additional BUCK regulator (BUCK6 and BUCK1B) - Additional LDO (LDO20) - different voltage and current capability This patch adds 88PM860 related buck/ldo voltage/current data to the driver, and creates the regulator_desc table. With addition of new device to the driver, couple of unavoidable changes, - The table gets referenced using regulator ID (PM800_ID_xxx), so table also needs to be created using ID. - The naming convention of voltage tables would no longer be mapped to respective ldos/bucks, so this patch also renames to more generic name. TODO: - Validation on 88PM800 device, looking for some help here, as I do not have any platform with 88PM800 device. Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org> --- drivers/regulator/88pm800.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h | 3 ++ 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)