On recent kernels, the PM8058 L16 (or any other PM8058 LDO-regulator)
does not come up if they are supplied by an SMPS-regulator. This
is not very strange since the regulators are registered in a long
array and the L-regulators are registered before the S-regulators,
and if an L-regulator defers, it will never get around to registering
the S-regulator that it needs.
See arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8060-dragonboard.dts:
pm8058-regulators {
(...)
vdd_l13_l16-supply = <&pm8058_s4>;
(...)
Ooops.
Fix this by moving the PM8058 S-regulators first in the array.
Do the same for the PM8901 S-regulators (though this is currently
not causing any problems with out device trees) so that the pattern
of registration order is the same on all PMnnnn chips.
Fixes: 087a1b5cdd55 ("regulator: qcom: Rework to single platform device")
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Andy Gross <[email protected]>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
---
drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
index 7f9d66ac37ff..3c41b71a1f52 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
@@ -802,6 +802,12 @@ static const struct rpm_regulator_data rpm_pm8018_regulators[] = {
};
static const struct rpm_regulator_data rpm_pm8058_regulators[] = {
+ { "s0", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS0, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s0" },
+ { "s1", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS1, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s1" },
+ { "s2", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS2, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s2" },
+ { "s3", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS3, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s3" },
+ { "s4", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS4, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s4" },
+
{ "l0", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_LDO0, &pm8058_nldo, "vdd_l0_l1_lvs" },
{ "l1", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_LDO1, &pm8058_nldo, "vdd_l0_l1_lvs" },
{ "l2", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_LDO2, &pm8058_pldo, "vdd_l2_l11_l12" },
@@ -829,12 +835,6 @@ static const struct rpm_regulator_data rpm_pm8058_regulators[] = {
{ "l24", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_LDO24, &pm8058_nldo, "vdd_l23_l24_l25" },
{ "l25", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_LDO25, &pm8058_nldo, "vdd_l23_l24_l25" },
- { "s0", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS0, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s0" },
- { "s1", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS1, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s1" },
- { "s2", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS2, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s2" },
- { "s3", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS3, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s3" },
- { "s4", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS4, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s4" },
-
{ "lvs0", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_LVS0, &pm8058_switch, "vdd_l0_l1_lvs" },
{ "lvs1", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_LVS1, &pm8058_switch, "vdd_l0_l1_lvs" },
@@ -843,6 +843,12 @@ static const struct rpm_regulator_data rpm_pm8058_regulators[] = {
};
static const struct rpm_regulator_data rpm_pm8901_regulators[] = {
+ { "s0", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS0, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s0" },
+ { "s1", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS1, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s1" },
+ { "s2", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS2, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s2" },
+ { "s3", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS3, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s3" },
+ { "s4", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS4, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s4" },
+
{ "l0", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_LDO0, &pm8901_nldo, "vdd_l0" },
{ "l1", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_LDO1, &pm8901_pldo, "vdd_l1" },
{ "l2", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_LDO2, &pm8901_pldo, "vdd_l2" },
@@ -851,12 +857,6 @@ static const struct rpm_regulator_data rpm_pm8901_regulators[] = {
{ "l5", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_LDO5, &pm8901_pldo, "vdd_l5" },
{ "l6", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_LDO6, &pm8901_pldo, "vdd_l6" },
- { "s0", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS0, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s0" },
- { "s1", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS1, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s1" },
- { "s2", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS2, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s2" },
- { "s3", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS3, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s3" },
- { "s4", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_SMPS4, &pm8901_ftsmps, "vdd_s4" },
-
{ "lvs0", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_LVS0, &pm8901_switch, "lvs0_in" },
{ "lvs1", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_LVS1, &pm8901_switch, "lvs1_in" },
{ "lvs2", QCOM_RPM_PM8901_LVS2, &pm8901_switch, "lvs2_in" },
--
2.37.3
On 09/09/2022 13:25, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On recent kernels, the PM8058 L16 (or any other PM8058 LDO-regulator)
> does not come up if they are supplied by an SMPS-regulator. This
> is not very strange since the regulators are registered in a long
> array and the L-regulators are registered before the S-regulators,
> and if an L-regulator defers, it will never get around to registering
> the S-regulator that it needs.
>
> See arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8060-dragonboard.dts:
>
> pm8058-regulators {
> (...)
> vdd_l13_l16-supply = <&pm8058_s4>;
> (...)
>
> Ooops.
>
> Fix this by moving the PM8058 S-regulators first in the array.
>
> Do the same for the PM8901 S-regulators (though this is currently
> not causing any problems with out device trees) so that the pattern
> of registration order is the same on all PMnnnn chips.
>
> Fixes: 087a1b5cdd55 ("regulator: qcom: Rework to single platform device")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: Andy Gross <[email protected]>
> Cc: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
> Cc: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
> index 7f9d66ac37ff..3c41b71a1f52 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
> @@ -802,6 +802,12 @@ static const struct rpm_regulator_data rpm_pm8018_regulators[] = {
> };
>
> static const struct rpm_regulator_data rpm_pm8058_regulators[] = {
> + { "s0", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS0, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s0" },
> + { "s1", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS1, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s1" },
> + { "s2", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS2, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s2" },
> + { "s3", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS3, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s3" },
> + { "s4", QCOM_RPM_PM8058_SMPS4, &pm8058_smps, "vdd_s4" },
> +
Would be great to have here a comment like "S-regulators (being used as
supplies) must come before the rest".
Same also in second table.
We like to re-order some things from time to time and no one would think
about checking Git history for any issues with it.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 13:25:29 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On recent kernels, the PM8058 L16 (or any other PM8058 LDO-regulator)
> does not come up if they are supplied by an SMPS-regulator. This
> is not very strange since the regulators are registered in a long
> array and the L-regulators are registered before the S-regulators,
> and if an L-regulator defers, it will never get around to registering
> the S-regulator that it needs.
>
> [...]
Applied to
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next
Thanks!
[1/1] regulator: qcom_rpm: Fix circular deferral regression
commit: 8478ed5844588703a1a4c96a004b1525fbdbdd5e
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.
Thanks,
Mark