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:   Fri, 29 May 2020 12:10:31 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, peron.clem@gmail.com,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: do not balance regulators without constraints
Message-ID: <20200529111031.GI4610@sirena.org.uk>
References: <CGME20200528131144eucas1p121b9151996fa3f780a5028f68c69d5ba@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20200528131130.17984-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
 <20200528134338.GD3606@sirena.org.uk>
 <56e496bc-172f-d62f-5376-c8d734af6a51@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="a7XSrSxqzVsaECgU"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56e496bc-172f-d62f-5376-c8d734af6a51@samsung.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--a7XSrSxqzVsaECgU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:45:06AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 28.05.2020 15:43, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This forces every supply to have something which explicitly manages
> > voltages which means that if one of the coupled supplies doesn't really
> > care about the voltage (perhaps doesn't even have any explicit
> > consumers) and just needs to be within a certain range of another supply
> > then it'll end up restricting things needlessly.

> Frankly, that's exactly what we need for Exynos5422 case. If devfreq=20
> driver is not enabled/compiled, we want to keep the "vdd_int" volatage=20
> unchanged. This confirms me that we really need to have a custom coupler=
=20
> for Exynos5422 case. It will solve such issues without adding hacks to=20
> regulator core.

It sounds like you need that or some form of cooperation between the
devfreq and cpufreq drivers.

> > Saravana was trying to do some stuff with sync_state() which might be
> > interesting here although I have concerns with that approach too:

> >     https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200527074057.246606-1-saravanak@goog=
le.com/

> This still doesn't solve the above mentioned case.

I didn't mean the particular patch, I meant something using the
sync_state() callback.

--a7XSrSxqzVsaECgU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAl7Q7aYACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DSMQgAgbeb3psUrmh+k8IJNk9lxznRjlF9o9ykd+JUnv7FBkSsqc1h45q66Owv
acsuM90K2nI00+p4BOFppnFDdqwDFrVTDxXwXq37zXRy47TS+eOabwD1Ykvvwei1
rQmgVZm/M7hlCawKjyrLAADmWHU7u0tcKAeuCbP7ch1Ze3kyBoeoSOlXcdz3LwAn
ZWTISkGoGoIJLMEehxQAercXRD3JqSQjZcW6W6UugrzL1a1B125hW0MTxItnbRW0
YIIebA+wuOL2jffXjTqP54zNgnS/HC+F3am1lWJhEQX/kcyzZfb6/pK4SWTkvyoO
vwTCMVfZqb9pnKFzvNdcDlrBopclKw==
=dVIH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--a7XSrSxqzVsaECgU--