On 08/19/2014 02:43 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
> Well, currently this seems like the best approach. If we end up having
> some new regulator helper function, future wise, we can convert to
> such later on.
>
Great, thanks a lot for your help!
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
Best regards,
Javier
--
To
On 14 August 2014 14:39, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> The operation conditions register (OCR) stores the voltage
> profile of the card, however the list of possible voltages
> is restricted by the voltage range supported by the supply
> used as VCC/VDD. So in mmc_vddrange_to_ocrmask() a OCR
On 19 August 2014 13:29, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> Hello Ulf,
>
> On 08/15/2014 04:51 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>
>> Just wanted to add some input regarding the errors in the mmc case.
>> These are of high importance. In principle if you get, "Failed getting
>> OCR mask: -22", likely you
Hello Ulf,
On 08/15/2014 04:51 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
> Just wanted to add some input regarding the errors in the mmc case.
> These are of high importance. In principle if you get, "Failed getting
> OCR mask: -22", likely you will be using a wrong OCR mask while
> negotiating the voltage level
Hello Ulf,
On 08/15/2014 04:51 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
Just wanted to add some input regarding the errors in the mmc case.
These are of high importance. In principle if you get, Failed getting
OCR mask: -22, likely you will be using a wrong OCR mask while
negotiating the voltage level with
On 19 August 2014 13:29, Javier Martinez Canillas
javier.marti...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Hello Ulf,
On 08/15/2014 04:51 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
Just wanted to add some input regarding the errors in the mmc case.
These are of high importance. In principle if you get, Failed getting
OCR mask:
On 14 August 2014 14:39, Javier Martinez Canillas
javier.marti...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
The operation conditions register (OCR) stores the voltage
profile of the card, however the list of possible voltages
is restricted by the voltage range supported by the supply
used as VCC/VDD. So in
On 08/19/2014 02:43 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
Well, currently this seems like the best approach. If we end up having
some new regulator helper function, future wise, we can convert to
such later on.
Great, thanks a lot for your help!
Kind regards
Uffe
Best regards,
Javier
--
To
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:11:30AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Nobody has written suitable code, and please bear in mind that even if
> > the code is written there will probably be cases where it's too
> > expensive for whatever reason so
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:11:30AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Nobody has written suitable code, and please bear in mind that even if
the code is written there will probably be cases where it's too
expensive for whatever
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 07:19:41AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
>
>> That is a little different from my suggestion where the constraints
>> check is skipped when the regulator output is fixed. It effectively
>> does this now when the regulator
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 07:19:41AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
That is a little different from my suggestion where the constraints
check is skipped when the regulator output is fixed. It effectively
does this now when the
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 04:51:38PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Just wanted to add some input regarding the errors in the mmc case.
> These are of high importance. In principle if you get, "Failed getting
> OCR mask: -22", likely you will be using a wrong OCR mask while
> negotiating the voltage
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 04:51:38PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
Just wanted to add some input regarding the errors in the mmc case.
These are of high importance. In principle if you get, Failed getting
OCR mask: -22, likely you will be using a wrong OCR mask while
negotiating the voltage level
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 07:19:41AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
> That is a little different from my suggestion where the constraints
> check is skipped when the regulator output is fixed. It effectively
> does this now when the regulator itself provides the fixed voltage.
> However, the checks
On 15 August 2014 11:55, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:48:43AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>
>> But now I wonder why regulator_list_voltage() even list the voltage for
>> fixed regulators (desc->fixed_uV) since they don't have the ability to
>> vary voltage. The
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> Hello Tim,
>
> On 08/15/2014 07:36 AM, Tim Kryger wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe we
>>> shouldn't be putting constraints
Hello Mark,
On 08/15/2014 11:55 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:48:43AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>
>> But now I wonder why regulator_list_voltage() even list the voltage for
>> fixed regulators (desc->fixed_uV) since they don't have the ability to
>
> That's
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:48:43AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> But now I wonder why regulator_list_voltage() even list the voltage for
> fixed regulators (desc->fixed_uV) since they don't have the ability to
> vary voltage. The regulator_list_voltage() documentation says:
That's
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:36:18PM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe we
> > shouldn't be putting constraints in .dtsi files if we don't know they're
> > OK for a given board.
Hello Tim,
On 08/15/2014 07:36 AM, Tim Kryger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe we
>> shouldn't be putting constraints in .dtsi files if we don't know they're
>> OK for a given board. The other
Hello Tim,
On 08/15/2014 07:36 AM, Tim Kryger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe we
shouldn't be putting constraints in .dtsi files if we don't know they're
OK for a given board.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:36:18PM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe we
shouldn't be putting constraints in .dtsi files if we don't know they're
OK for a
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:48:43AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
But now I wonder why regulator_list_voltage() even list the voltage for
fixed regulators (desc-fixed_uV) since they don't have the ability to
vary voltage. The regulator_list_voltage() documentation says:
That's because
Hello Mark,
On 08/15/2014 11:55 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:48:43AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
But now I wonder why regulator_list_voltage() even list the voltage for
fixed regulators (desc-fixed_uV) since they don't have the ability to
That's because it's
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
javier.marti...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Hello Tim,
On 08/15/2014 07:36 AM, Tim Kryger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe
On 15 August 2014 11:55, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:48:43AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
But now I wonder why regulator_list_voltage() even list the voltage for
fixed regulators (desc-fixed_uV) since they don't have the ability to
vary voltage.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 07:19:41AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
That is a little different from my suggestion where the constraints
check is skipped when the regulator output is fixed. It effectively
does this now when the regulator itself provides the fixed voltage.
However, the checks aren't
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe we
> shouldn't be putting constraints in .dtsi files if we don't know they're
> OK for a given board. The other thing is that on this particular board
> it turns out that
Hello Tim,
Thanks for your feedback.
On 08/14/2014 04:13 PM, Tim Kryger wrote:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/12/377
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion in that thread but couldn't
> this failure also be addressed by adding proper constraints for each
> FET in individual DTS files to
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 07:13:00AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> > Without this patch, the following warning is reported when
> > a FET is used as a vmmc-supply:
> > dwmmc_exynos 1222.mmc: Failed getting OCR mask: -22
> >
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> The operation conditions register (OCR) stores the voltage
> profile of the card, however the list of possible voltages
> is restricted by the voltage range supported by the supply
> used as VCC/VDD. So in
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
javier.marti...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
The operation conditions register (OCR) stores the voltage
profile of the card, however the list of possible voltages
is restricted by the voltage range supported by the supply
used as VCC/VDD. So
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 07:13:00AM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
Without this patch, the following warning is reported when
a FET is used as a vmmc-supply:
dwmmc_exynos 1222.mmc: Failed getting OCR mask: -22
Signed-off-by: Javier
Hello Tim,
Thanks for your feedback.
On 08/14/2014 04:13 PM, Tim Kryger wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/12/377
Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion in that thread but couldn't
this failure also be addressed by adding proper constraints for each
FET in individual DTS files to
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Right, there's two things going on here. One is that as you describe we
shouldn't be putting constraints in .dtsi files if we don't know they're
OK for a given board. The other thing is that on this particular board
it
36 matches
Mail list logo
