Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220829164952.2672848-1-dianders@chromium.org> <Yw8EE/ESDUnIRf8P@hovoldconsulting.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yw8EE/ESDUnIRf8P@hovoldconsulting.com>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:52:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VJz2hjvsUhsjBPt9nmm3X62oTdAqMeSFABYJietPPzWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: dts: qcom: Fix broken regulator spec on
 RPMH boards
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:47 PM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:49:46AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > Prior to commit efb0cb50c427 ("regulator: qcom-rpmh: Implement
> > get_optimum_mode(), not set_load()") several boards were able to
> > change their regulator mode even though they had nothing listed in
> > "regulator-allowed-modes". After that commit (and fixes [1]) we'll be
> > stuck at the initial mode. Discussion of this (again, see [1]) has
> > resulted in the decision that the old dts files were wrong and should
> > be fixed to fully restore old functionality.
> >
> > This series attempts to fix everyone. I've kept each board in a
> > separate patch to make stable / backports work easier.
>
> Should you also update the bindings so that this can be caught during
> devicetree validation? That is, to always require
> "regulator-allowed-modes" when "regulator-allow-set-load" is specified.

Yeah, it's probably a good idea. I'm happy to review a patch that does
that. I'm already quite a few patches deep of submitting random
cleanups because someone mentioned it in a code review. ;-) That's
actually how I got in this mess to begin with. The RPMH change was in
response to a request in a different code review. ...and that came
about in a code review that was posted in response to a comment about
how awkward setting regulator loads was... Need to get back to my day
job.

In any case, I think these dts patches are ready to land now.


> Perhaps at least for RPMh as it seemed you found some cases were this
> wasn't currently needed (even if that sounded like an Linux-specific
> implementation detail).

I think you're talking about the RPM vs. RPMH difference? It's
actually not Linux specific. In RPM the API to the "hardware"
(actually a remote processor) is to pass the load. In RPMH the API to
the hardware is to pass a mode. This is why RPMH has
"regulator-allowed-modes" and "regulator-initial-mode". Both RPM and
RPMH have "regulator-allow-set-load" though...

-Doug