Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <[email protected]>
---
drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
index 696116ebdf50a..81672a58fcc23 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
@@ -1107,6 +1107,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
switch (tps65910_chip_id(tps65910)) {
case TPS65910:
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(TPS65910_NUM_REGS < ARRAY_SIZE(tps65910_regs));
pmic->get_ctrl_reg = &tps65910_get_ctrl_register;
pmic->num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(tps65910_regs);
pmic->ext_sleep_control = tps65910_ext_sleep_control;
@@ -1119,6 +1120,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
DCDCCTRL_DCDCCKSYNC_MASK);
break;
case TPS65911:
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(TPS65910_NUM_REGS < ARRAY_SIZE(tps65911_regs));
pmic->get_ctrl_reg = &tps65911_get_ctrl_register;
pmic->num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(tps65911_regs);
pmic->ext_sleep_control = tps65911_ext_sleep_control;
@@ -1144,8 +1146,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (!pmic->rdev)
return -ENOMEM;
- for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators && i < TPS65910_NUM_REGS;
- i++, info++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators; i++, info++) {
/* Register the regulators */
pmic->info[i] = info;
--
2.11.0
This allows for (acyclic) references from tps6591x supplies to
its outputs.
Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <[email protected]>
---
drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
index 81672a58fcc23..f7987168ba4ed 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
@@ -1082,7 +1082,8 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
struct tps65910_reg *pmic;
struct tps65910_board *pmic_plat_data;
struct of_regulator_match *tps65910_reg_matches = NULL;
- int i, err;
+ bool made_progress;
+ int i, err, pending;
pmic_plat_data = dev_get_platdata(tps65910->dev);
if (!pmic_plat_data && tps65910->dev->of_node)
@@ -1146,6 +1147,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (!pmic->rdev)
return -ENOMEM;
+ /* prepare regulator description */
for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators; i++, info++) {
/* Register the regulators */
pmic->info[i] = info;
@@ -1196,18 +1198,32 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
pmic->desc[i].owner = THIS_MODULE;
pmic->desc[i].enable_reg = pmic->get_ctrl_reg(i);
pmic->desc[i].enable_mask = TPS65910_SUPPLY_STATE_ENABLED;
+ }
+
+ /* Register regulators - loop, as one regulator's output
+ * might be anothers input */
+
+ config.dev = pmic->mfd->dev;
+ config.driver_data = pmic;
+ config.regmap = pmic->mfd->regmap;
+ pending = pmic->num_regulators;
+
+reg_retry:
+ made_progress = false;
+ for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators; i++) {
+ if (pmic->rdev[i])
+ continue;
- config.dev = tps65910->dev;
config.init_data = pmic_plat_data->tps65910_pmic_init_data[i];
- config.driver_data = pmic;
- config.regmap = tps65910->regmap;
-
if (tps65910_reg_matches)
config.of_node = tps65910_reg_matches[i].of_node;
rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &pmic->desc[i],
&config);
if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
+ if (PTR_ERR(rdev) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ continue;
+
dev_err(tps65910->dev,
"failed to register %s regulator\n",
pdev->name);
@@ -1216,8 +1232,19 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
/* Save regulator for cleanup */
pmic->rdev[i] = rdev;
+
+ made_progress = true;
+ --pending;
}
- return 0;
+
+ /* all done? */
+ if (!pending)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (made_progress)
+ goto reg_retry;
+
+ return -EPROBE_DEFER;
}
static void tps65910_shutdown(struct platform_device *pdev)
--
2.11.0
On Tuesday 13 June 2017 07:28 PM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
Missing commit log?
> Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
> index 696116ebdf50a..81672a58fcc23 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
> @@ -1107,6 +1107,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> switch (tps65910_chip_id(tps65910)) {
> case TPS65910:
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(TPS65910_NUM_REGS < ARRAY_SIZE(tps65910_regs));
> pmic->get_ctrl_reg = &tps65910_get_ctrl_register;
> pmic->num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(tps65910_regs);
> pmic->ext_sleep_control = tps65910_ext_sleep_control;
> @@ -1119,6 +1120,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> DCDCCTRL_DCDCCKSYNC_MASK);
> break;
> case TPS65911:
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(TPS65910_NUM_REGS < ARRAY_SIZE(tps65911_regs));
> pmic->get_ctrl_reg = &tps65911_get_ctrl_register;
> pmic->num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(tps65911_regs);
> pmic->ext_sleep_control = tps65911_ext_sleep_control;
> @@ -1144,8 +1146,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (!pmic->rdev)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators && i < TPS65910_NUM_REGS;
> - i++, info++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators; i++, info++) {
> /* Register the regulators */
> pmic->info[i] = info;
>
>
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:31:21PM +0530, Keerthy wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 07:28 PM, Micha? Miros?aw wrote:
>
> Missing commit log?
[...]
Oh, indeed. I'll fix this in a moment.
Best Regards,
Micha? Miros?aw
Check TPS65910_NUM_REGS at build time instead of silently registering
not all regulators at runtime.
Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <[email protected]>
---
v2:
- added commit message
drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
index 696116ebdf50a..81672a58fcc23 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
@@ -1107,6 +1107,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
switch (tps65910_chip_id(tps65910)) {
case TPS65910:
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(TPS65910_NUM_REGS < ARRAY_SIZE(tps65910_regs));
pmic->get_ctrl_reg = &tps65910_get_ctrl_register;
pmic->num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(tps65910_regs);
pmic->ext_sleep_control = tps65910_ext_sleep_control;
@@ -1119,6 +1120,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
DCDCCTRL_DCDCCKSYNC_MASK);
break;
case TPS65911:
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(TPS65910_NUM_REGS < ARRAY_SIZE(tps65911_regs));
pmic->get_ctrl_reg = &tps65911_get_ctrl_register;
pmic->num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(tps65911_regs);
pmic->ext_sleep_control = tps65911_ext_sleep_control;
@@ -1144,8 +1146,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (!pmic->rdev)
return -ENOMEM;
- for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators && i < TPS65910_NUM_REGS;
- i++, info++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators; i++, info++) {
/* Register the regulators */
pmic->info[i] = info;
--
2.11.0
This allows for (acyclic) references from tps6591x supplies to
its outputs.
Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <[email protected]>
---
v2:
- no changes
drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
index 81672a58fcc23..f7987168ba4ed 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/tps65910-regulator.c
@@ -1082,7 +1082,8 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
struct tps65910_reg *pmic;
struct tps65910_board *pmic_plat_data;
struct of_regulator_match *tps65910_reg_matches = NULL;
- int i, err;
+ bool made_progress;
+ int i, err, pending;
pmic_plat_data = dev_get_platdata(tps65910->dev);
if (!pmic_plat_data && tps65910->dev->of_node)
@@ -1146,6 +1147,7 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (!pmic->rdev)
return -ENOMEM;
+ /* prepare regulator description */
for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators; i++, info++) {
/* Register the regulators */
pmic->info[i] = info;
@@ -1196,18 +1198,32 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
pmic->desc[i].owner = THIS_MODULE;
pmic->desc[i].enable_reg = pmic->get_ctrl_reg(i);
pmic->desc[i].enable_mask = TPS65910_SUPPLY_STATE_ENABLED;
+ }
+
+ /* Register regulators - loop, as one regulator's output
+ * might be anothers input */
+
+ config.dev = pmic->mfd->dev;
+ config.driver_data = pmic;
+ config.regmap = pmic->mfd->regmap;
+ pending = pmic->num_regulators;
+
+reg_retry:
+ made_progress = false;
+ for (i = 0; i < pmic->num_regulators; i++) {
+ if (pmic->rdev[i])
+ continue;
- config.dev = tps65910->dev;
config.init_data = pmic_plat_data->tps65910_pmic_init_data[i];
- config.driver_data = pmic;
- config.regmap = tps65910->regmap;
-
if (tps65910_reg_matches)
config.of_node = tps65910_reg_matches[i].of_node;
rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &pmic->desc[i],
&config);
if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
+ if (PTR_ERR(rdev) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ continue;
+
dev_err(tps65910->dev,
"failed to register %s regulator\n",
pdev->name);
@@ -1216,8 +1232,19 @@ static int tps65910_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
/* Save regulator for cleanup */
pmic->rdev[i] = rdev;
+
+ made_progress = true;
+ --pending;
}
- return 0;
+
+ /* all done? */
+ if (!pending)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (made_progress)
+ goto reg_retry;
+
+ return -EPROBE_DEFER;
}
static void tps65910_shutdown(struct platform_device *pdev)
--
2.11.0
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> Check TPS65910_NUM_REGS at build time instead of silently registering
> not all regulators at runtime.
Please don't send new versions of patches in reply to existing threads,
it makes it hard to figure out what the current versions of things are.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 04:41:58PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> This allows for (acyclic) references from tps6591x supplies to
> its outputs.
This is clearly not something that should be open coded in individual
drivers, aside from the code duplication it is obviously possible to
have two different chips supplying each other which this wouldn't help
at all. Is this happening for you with current kernels, we have a few
mechanisms for deferring bindings of supplies which should help here.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 06:46:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 04:41:58PM +0200, Micha? Miros?aw wrote:
> > This allows for (acyclic) references from tps6591x supplies to
> > its outputs.
> This is clearly not something that should be open coded in individual
> drivers, aside from the code duplication it is obviously possible to
> have two different chips supplying each other which this wouldn't help
> at all. Is this happening for you with current kernels, we have a few
> mechanisms for deferring bindings of supplies which should help here.
What mechanisms would that be? What I observed is that whenever
a regulator's supply is not available but described in device-tree,
the whole device's registration is deferred.
The device-tree I'm working on contains:
pmic: tps65911@2d {
compatible = "ti,tps65911";
reg = <0x2d>;
...
vcc3-supply = <&vio_reg>; // ldo6, ldo7, ldo8
...
regulators {
vio_reg: vio {
regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>;
regulator-always-on;
};
...
}
}
Best Regards,
Micha? Miros?aw
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:22:17PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 06:46:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > at all. Is this happening for you with current kernels, we have a few
> > mechanisms for deferring bindings of supplies which should help here.
> What mechanisms would that be? What I observed is that whenever
> a regulator's supply is not available but described in device-tree,
> the whole device's registration is deferred.
Mainly "Don't use regulators as supplies until the parent is bound",
there were some older ones IIRC.
Hello Michal,
What kernel version are you using?
It shouldn't be necessary anymore to resolve regulators dependencies
during regulator_register(), now that logic to lookup the parent
supply has been moved to regulator_get() instead.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Michał Mirosław
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 06:46:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 04:41:58PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>> > This allows for (acyclic) references from tps6591x supplies to
>> > its outputs.
>> This is clearly not something that should be open coded in individual
>> drivers, aside from the code duplication it is obviously possible to
>> have two different chips supplying each other which this wouldn't help
>> at all. Is this happening for you with current kernels, we have a few
>> mechanisms for deferring bindings of supplies which should help here.
>
> What mechanisms would that be? What I observed is that whenever
The specific commit that adds the mechanism Mark is referring to is:
commit 6261b06de565baafa590e58a531a1a5522cea0b6
Author: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
Date: Tue Mar 24 18:56:05 2015 -0700
regulator: Defer lookup of supply to regulator_get
Instead of resolving regulator supplies during registration move this to
the time of a consumer retrieving a handle. The benefit is that it's
possible for one driver to register regulators with internal
dependencies out of order.
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
> a regulator's supply is not available but described in device-tree,
What do you mean by not available? At some point it the parent supply
should be registered with the regulator core and prevent the client
device to defer its probe when calling regulator_get().
Now, if you don't have a client device that calls regulator_get() to
resolve the parent supply but still need the parent supply to be
enabled, this commit does in the core what you attempt to do in your
driver:
commit 5e3ca2b349b1e2c80b060b51bbf2af37448fad85
Author: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Mar 23 20:59:34 2016 -0300
regulator: Try to resolve regulators supplies on registration
Commit 6261b06de565 ("regulator: Defer lookup of supply to regulator_get")
moved the regulator supplies lookup logic from the regulators registration
to the regulators get time.
Unfortunately, that changed the behavior of the regulator core since now a
parent supply with a child regulator marked as always-on, won't be enabled
unless a client driver attempts to get the child regulator during boot.
This patch tries to resolve the parent supply for the already registered
regulators each time that a new regulator is registered. So the regulators
that have child regulators marked as always on will be enabled regardless
if a driver gets the child regulator or not.
That was the behavior before the mentioned commit, since parent supplies
were looked up at regulator registration time instead of during child get.
Since regulator_resolve_supply() checks for rdev->supply, most of the times
it will be a no-op. Errors aren't checked to keep the possible out of order
dependencies which was the motivation for the mentioned commit.
Also, the supply being available will be enforced on regulator get anyways
in case the resolve fails on regulators registration.
Fixes: 6261b06de565 ("regulator: Defer lookup of supply to regulator_get")
Suggested-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]> # 4.1+
> the whole device's registration is deferred.
>
> The device-tree I'm working on contains:
>
> pmic: tps65911@2d {
> compatible = "ti,tps65911";
> reg = <0x2d>;
> ...
> vcc3-supply = <&vio_reg>; // ldo6, ldo7, ldo8
> ...
> regulators {
> vio_reg: vio {
> regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
> regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>;
> regulator-always-on;
> };
> ...
> }
> }
I don't see anything wrong with this DTS, it should work....
I did something similar for the max77802 PMIC in
arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5800-peach-pi.dts, some regulators have as
input supplies regulators from the same PMIC and may not be
necessarily registered in the order to resolve parent supplies on
child registration.
>
> Best Regards,
> Michał Mirosław
Best regards,
Javier
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 09:56:37AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Michal,
>
> What kernel version are you using?
This was on v4.10 and then v4.11. Both have commits you referred to.
I'll have to recreate the configuration where this patch was needed,
so let's drop it for now.
Best Regards,
Micha? Miros?aw