Hi,
I would like to extend the PWBUS_REGULATOR macro to be able to define
a vin-supply. This makes it possible to regulate the voltage input
supply and even turn it off, if not required.
Change in v2:
- Adapt commit message.
Marcello Sylvester Bauer (1):
hwmon: (pmbus) Add regulator supply into macro
drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
--
2.34.1
Add regulator supply into PWBUS_REGULATOR macro. This makes it optional
to define a vin-supply in DT. Not defining a supply will add a dummy
regulator supply instead and only cause the following debug output:
```
Looking up vin-supply property in node [...] failed
```
Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
index e0aa8aa46d8c..38f049d68d32 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
@@ -464,6 +464,7 @@ extern const struct regulator_ops pmbus_regulator_ops;
#define PMBUS_REGULATOR(_name, _id) \
[_id] = { \
.name = (_name # _id), \
+ .supply_name = "vin", \
.id = (_id), \
.of_match = of_match_ptr(_name # _id), \
.regulators_node = of_match_ptr("regulators"), \
--
2.34.1
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:09:56PM +0100, Marcello Sylvester Bauer wrote:
> Add regulator supply into PWBUS_REGULATOR macro. This makes it optional
> to define a vin-supply in DT. Not defining a supply will add a dummy
> regulator supply instead and only cause the following debug output:
>
> ```
> Looking up vin-supply property in node [...] failed
> ```
>
> Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <[email protected]>
Applied to hwmon-next. That should give it some time to mature,
and we can pull or modify it if it causes any problems.
Thanks,
Guenter
> ---
> drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> index e0aa8aa46d8c..38f049d68d32 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> @@ -464,6 +464,7 @@ extern const struct regulator_ops pmbus_regulator_ops;
> #define PMBUS_REGULATOR(_name, _id) \
> [_id] = { \
> .name = (_name # _id), \
> + .supply_name = "vin", \
> .id = (_id), \
> .of_match = of_match_ptr(_name # _id), \
> .regulators_node = of_match_ptr("regulators"), \
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:51:04AM PST, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:09:56PM +0100, Marcello Sylvester Bauer wrote:
>> Add regulator supply into PWBUS_REGULATOR macro. This makes it optional
>> to define a vin-supply in DT. Not defining a supply will add a dummy
>> regulator supply instead and only cause the following debug output:
>>
>> ```
>> Looking up vin-supply property in node [...] failed
>> ```
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <[email protected]>
>
>Applied to hwmon-next. That should give it some time to mature,
>and we can pull or modify it if it causes any problems.
>
Wish I'd caught this sooner, but unfortunately I've just discovered that
this does in fact cause breakage on my systems -- having regulator-dummy
set as a supply on my PMBus regulators (instead of having them as their
own top-level regulators without an upstream supply) leads to
enable-count underflow errors when disabling them:
# echo 0 > /sys/bus/platform/devices/efuse01/state
[ 906.094477] regulator-dummy: Underflow of regulator enable count
[ 906.100563] Failed to disable vout: -EINVAL
[ 136.992676] reg-userspace-consumer efuse01: Failed to configure state: -22
A simple revert solves the problem for me, but since I'm honestly a
little unclear on the intent of the patch itself I'm not sure what a
revert might break and hence I don't know if that's necessarily the
right fix. Marcello (or others), any thoughts?
Thanks,
Zev
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:30:30PM -0700, Zev Weiss wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:51:04AM PST, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:09:56PM +0100, Marcello Sylvester Bauer wrote:
> > > Add regulator supply into PWBUS_REGULATOR macro. This makes it optional
> > > to define a vin-supply in DT. Not defining a supply will add a dummy
> > > regulator supply instead and only cause the following debug output:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > Looking up vin-supply property in node [...] failed
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <[email protected]>
> >
> > Applied to hwmon-next. That should give it some time to mature,
> > and we can pull or modify it if it causes any problems.
> >
>
> Wish I'd caught this sooner, but unfortunately I've just discovered that
> this does in fact cause breakage on my systems -- having regulator-dummy set
> as a supply on my PMBus regulators (instead of having them as their own
> top-level regulators without an upstream supply) leads to enable-count
> underflow errors when disabling them:
>
> # echo 0 > /sys/bus/platform/devices/efuse01/state
> [ 906.094477] regulator-dummy: Underflow of regulator enable count
> [ 906.100563] Failed to disable vout: -EINVAL
> [ 136.992676] reg-userspace-consumer efuse01: Failed to configure state: -22
>
> A simple revert solves the problem for me, but since I'm honestly a little
> unclear on the intent of the patch itself I'm not sure what a revert might
> break and hence I don't know if that's necessarily the right fix. Marcello
> (or others), any thoughts?
Revert now, ask questions later. I'll send a patch.
Guenter
>
>
> Thanks,
> Zev
>
On 11/5/22 00:42, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:30:30PM -0700, Zev Weiss wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:51:04AM PST, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:09:56PM +0100, Marcello Sylvester Bauer wrote:
>>>> Add regulator supply into PWBUS_REGULATOR macro. This makes it optional
>>>> to define a vin-supply in DT. Not defining a supply will add a dummy
>>>> regulator supply instead and only cause the following debug output:
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> Looking up vin-supply property in node [...] failed
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <[email protected]>
>>> Applied to hwmon-next. That should give it some time to mature,
>>> and we can pull or modify it if it causes any problems.
>>>
>> Wish I'd caught this sooner, but unfortunately I've just discovered that
>> this does in fact cause breakage on my systems -- having regulator-dummy set
>> as a supply on my PMBus regulators (instead of having them as their own
>> top-level regulators without an upstream supply) leads to enable-count
>> underflow errors when disabling them:
>>
>> # echo 0 > /sys/bus/platform/devices/efuse01/state
>> [ 906.094477] regulator-dummy: Underflow of regulator enable count
>> [ 906.100563] Failed to disable vout: -EINVAL
>> [ 136.992676] reg-userspace-consumer efuse01: Failed to configure state: -22
>>
>> A simple revert solves the problem for me, but since I'm honestly a little
>> unclear on the intent of the patch itself I'm not sure what a revert might
>> break and hence I don't know if that's necessarily the right fix. Marcello
>> (or others), any thoughts?
Oh, my bad. I thought this makes it optional to add a supply without
having a negative effect.
Reverting this patch makes sense, but I'm not sure how else to integrate
this.
Thanks,
Marcello
> Revert now, ask questions later. I'll send a patch.
>
> Guenter
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Zev
>>