Hi Stephen,
On 08/05/2016 12:04 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 06:51 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> In order to support eh Qualcomm MDM9615 SoC, add support for the
>
> s/eh/the/
>
>> PM8018 RPM regulator in the qcom_rpm-regulator driver.
>>
>> Acked-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <[email protected]>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
>> b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
>> index e254272..0734a5f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
>> @@ -70,6 +70,40 @@ struct qcom_rpm_reg {
>> bool supports_force_mode_bypass;
>> };
>>
>> +static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_ldo_parts = {
>> + .request_len = 2,
>> + .uV = { 0, 0x007FFFFF, 0},
>> + .pd = { 0, 0x00800000, 23},
>> + .pc = { 0, 0x0F000000, 24},
>> + .pf = { 0, 0xF0000000, 28},
>> + .ip = { 1, 0x000003FF, 0},
>> + .ia = { 1, 0x000FFC00, 10},
>> + .fm = { 1, 0x00700000, 20},
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_smps_parts = {
>> + .request_len = 2,
>> + .uV = { 0, 0x007FFFFF, 0},
>> + .pd = { 0, 0x00800000, 23},
>> + .pc = { 0, 0x0F000000, 24},
>> + .pf = { 0, 0xF0000000, 28},
>> + .ip = { 1, 0x000003FF, 0},
>> + .ia = { 1, 0x000FFC00, 10},
>> + .fm = { 1, 0x00700000, 20},
>> + .pm = { 1, 0x00800000, 23},
>> + .freq = { 1, 0x1F000000, 24},
>> + .freq_clk_src = { 1, 0x60000000, 29},
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_switch_parts = {
>> + .request_len = 1,
>> + .enable_state = { 0, 0x00000001, 0},
>> + .pd = { 0, 0x00000002, 1},
>> + .pc = { 0, 0x0000003C, 2},
>> + .pf = { 0, 0x000003C0, 6},
>> + .hpm = { 0, 0x00000C00, 10},
>> +};
>> +
>
> These are all the same as the rpm8960 ones, so why don't we reuse those
> structures?
Indeed, I will reuse them.
>
>> static const struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8660_ldo_parts = {
>> .request_len = 2,
>> .mV = { 0, 0x00000FFF, 0 },
>> @@ -448,6 +482,44 @@ static struct regulator_ops switch_ops = {
>> };
>>
>> /*
>> + * PM8018 regulators
>> + */
>> +static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_pldo = {
>> + .desc.linear_ranges = pldo_ranges,
>> + .desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(pldo_ranges),
>> + .desc.n_voltages = 161,
>> + .desc.ops = &uV_ops,
>> + .parts = &rpm8018_ldo_parts,
>> + .supports_force_mode_auto = false,
>> + .supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_nldo = {
>> + .desc.linear_ranges = nldo_ranges,
>> + .desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(nldo_ranges),
>> + .desc.n_voltages = 64,
>> + .desc.ops = &uV_ops,
>> + .parts = &rpm8018_ldo_parts,
>> + .supports_force_mode_auto = false,
>> + .supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_smps = {
>> + .desc.linear_ranges = smps_ranges,
>> + .desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(smps_ranges),
>> + .desc.n_voltages = 154,
>> + .desc.ops = &uV_ops,
>> + .parts = &rpm8018_smps_parts,
>> + .supports_force_mode_auto = false,
>> + .supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_switch = {
>> + .desc.ops = &switch_ops,
>> + .parts = &rpm8018_switch_parts,
>> +};
>> +
>
> These are all the same as the pm8921 ones too? So just use those instead?
They look but the supports_force_mode_bypass is set to "true" for pm8921.
These pm8018 structures are still needed.
>
> We should probably rethink this design and have these structures based
> on PMIC derivatives instead of SoCs because things are quite similar
> across many PMICs.
>
This would help to support the huge pmic family !
Neil
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
