Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:45:22 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To:     =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgUMOpcm9u?= <peron.clem@gmail.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com>,
        Piotr Oniszczuk <warpme@o2.pl>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: allwinner: h6: Use
 dummy regulator for Tanix TX6
Message-ID: <20200428164522.p7ypca7zwocc7alq@gilmour.lan>
References: <20200428142629.8950-1-peron.clem@gmail.com>
 <98246e5d-ebef-bcb5-f0b8-d74b3834b835@arm.com>
 <CAJiuCcco0d_UoWeHqh6oc0rFNAMFynXjLRQ6APsT0WBh7m+GQg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cbn7zzdgl2fsor3b"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJiuCcco0d_UoWeHqh6oc0rFNAMFynXjLRQ6APsT0WBh7m+GQg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--cbn7zzdgl2fsor3b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 06:23:35PM +0200, Cl=E9ment P=E9ron wrote:
> Hi Robin,
>=20
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 17:21, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-04-28 3:26 pm, Cl=E9ment P=E9ron wrote:
> > > Tanix TX6 has a fixed regulator. As DVFS is instructed to change
> > > voltage to meet OPP table, the DVFS is not working as expected.
> >
> > Hmm, isn't that really a bug in the DVFS code? I guess it's just blindly
> > propagating -EINVAL from the fixed regulators not implementing
> > set_voltage, but AFAICS it has no real excuse not to be cleverer and
> > still allow switching frequency as long as the voltage *is* high enough
> > for the given OPP. I wonder how well it works if the regulator is
> > programmable but shared with other consumers... that case probably can't
> > be hacked around in DT.
>=20
> Like you, I thought that the DVFS was clever enough to understand this
> but guess not..
>=20
> Maybe they are some cases where you don't want to leave the voltage high =
and
> reduce the frequency. But I don't know such case.

I assume the intent was to prevent a regulator driver to overshoot and end =
up
over-volting the CPU which would be pretty bad.

I guess we could check that the voltage is in the range opp < actual voltag=
e <
max opp voltage ?

Maxime

--cbn7zzdgl2fsor3b
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRcEzekXsqa64kGDp7j7w1vZxhRxQUCXqhdogAKCRDj7w1vZxhR
xf6IAP9w+DY1O6bT4B3lg/+eirUFYM1skafnWKyx1f2y49KdYQEA2gJSF//W+64e
k+em/HwQHNH7fcP/zuv+U6G30n1Ocgs=
=CEt2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--cbn7zzdgl2fsor3b--