2013-04-13 14:14:15

by Luis R. Rodriguez

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 5/7] backports: add support for voltage / current regulator drivers

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]>

This backports the latest regulator drivers for kernels >= 3.4.
We enable the regulator only on kernels >= 3.4 given that
it relies on the new probe deferral mechanism which would
otherwise mean having to support drivers that do not probe
correctly. Note that 3.2 had a base regulator implementation
but that was just stubs.

I did look into a way to upgrade the core kernel regulator
but given that it relies on late_initcall() and core_initcall()
we can't update this part of the kernel. I even looked at
using ksplice for this but it seems ksplice can't be used to
update init sections on the vmlinux ELF. I also haven't much
updates to these routines since 3.4 except for 86f5fcfc.

1 2.6.24 [ OK ]
2 2.6.25 [ OK ]
3 2.6.26 [ OK ]
4 2.6.27 [ OK ]
5 2.6.28 [ OK ]
6 2.6.29 [ OK ]
7 2.6.30 [ OK ]
8 2.6.31 [ OK ]
9 2.6.32 [ OK ]
10 2.6.33 [ OK ]
11 2.6.34 [ OK ]
12 2.6.35 [ OK ]
13 2.6.36 [ OK ]
14 2.6.37 [ OK ]
15 2.6.38 [ OK ]
16 2.6.39 [ OK ]
17 3.0.65 [ OK ]
18 3.1.10 [ OK ]
19 3.2.38 [ OK ]
20 3.3.8 [ OK ]
21 3.4.32 [ OK ]
22 3.5.7 [ OK ]
23 3.6.11 [ OK ]
24 3.7.9 [ OK ]
25 3.8.0 [ OK ]
26 3.9-rc1 [ OK ]

real 39m35.615s
user 1068m47.428s
sys 155m55.657s

Cc: Liam Girdwood <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
---
backport/Kconfig | 2 +
backport/Makefile.kernel | 1 +
backport/defconfigs/regulator | 63 ++++++++++++++++++
copy-list | 33 ++++++++++
dependencies | 27 ++++++++
.../regulator/0001-bt8xx-rename-dst-ops.patch | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 193 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 backport/defconfigs/regulator
create mode 100644 patches/collateral-evolutions/regulator/0001-bt8xx-rename-dst-ops.patch

diff --git a/backport/Kconfig b/backport/Kconfig
index 6ab0991..6088bfe 100644
--- a/backport/Kconfig
+++ b/backport/Kconfig
@@ -38,3 +38,5 @@ source drivers/bcma/Kconfig
source drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig

source net/nfc/Kconfig
+
+source drivers/regulator/Kconfig
diff --git a/backport/Makefile.kernel b/backport/Makefile.kernel
index 59e95ef..2741cc9 100644
--- a/backport/Makefile.kernel
+++ b/backport/Makefile.kernel
@@ -31,3 +31,4 @@ obj-$(CPTCFG_ETHERNET) += drivers/net/ethernet/
obj-$(CPTCFG_DRM) += drivers/gpu/drm/
obj-$(CPTCFG_NFC) += net/nfc/
obj-$(CPTCFG_NFC) += drivers/nfc/
+obj-$(CPTCFG_REGULATOR) += drivers/regulator/
diff --git a/backport/defconfigs/regulator b/backport/defconfigs/regulator
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c080747
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backport/defconfigs/regulator
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_88PM8607=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_AAT2870=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_AB3100=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_AB8500=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_AD5398=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_ANATOP=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_ARIZONA=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_AS3711=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_DA903X=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_DA9052=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_DA9055=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_DB8500_PRCMU=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_DBX500_PRCMU=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_DEBUG=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_FAN53555=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_FIXED_VOLTAGE=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_GPIO=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_ISL6271A=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_LP3971=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_LP3972=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_LP872X=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_LP8755=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_LP8788=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX1586=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX77686=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX8649=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX8660=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX8907=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX8925=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX8952=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX8973=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX8997=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MAX8998=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MC13783=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MC13892=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_MC13XXX_CORE=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_PALMAS=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_PCAP=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_PCF50633=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_RC5T583=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_S2MPS11=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_S5M8767=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS51632=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS6105X=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS62360=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS65023=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS6507X=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS65090=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS65217=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS6524X=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS6586X=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS65910=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS65912=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TPS80031=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_TWL4030=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_USERSPACE_CONSUMER=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_VEXPRESS=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_VIRTUAL_CONSUMER=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_WM831X=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_WM8350=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_WM8400=y
+CPTCFG_REGULATOR_WM8994=y
diff --git a/copy-list b/copy-list
index e8b1241..9771c43 100644
--- a/copy-list
+++ b/copy-list
@@ -135,3 +135,36 @@ drivers/nfc/
drivers/nfc/microread/
drivers/nfc/pn544/
include/linux/platform_data/pn544.h
+
+# Regulator
+# we don't include the whole directory as we need
+# rely on your core regulator implementation given that
+# it relies on late_initcall() and core_initcall() and
+# these can't be backported, as such we need to rely
+# on your base kernel regulator implementatin and can
+# only extend it with further exports. Your core
+# regulator routines are defined via the header file
+# include/linux/regulator/consumer.h and dummy.h
+include/linux/regulator/ab8500.h
+include/linux/regulator/db8500-prcmu.h
+include/linux/regulator/driver.h
+include/linux/regulator/fan53555.h
+include/linux/regulator/fixed.h
+include/linux/regulator/gpio-regulator.h
+include/linux/regulator/lp3971.h
+include/linux/regulator/lp3972.h
+include/linux/regulator/lp872x.h
+include/linux/regulator/machine.h
+include/linux/regulator/max1586.h
+include/linux/regulator/max8649.h
+include/linux/regulator/max8660.h
+include/linux/regulator/max8952.h
+include/linux/regulator/max8973-regulator.h
+include/linux/regulator/of_regulator.h
+include/linux/regulator/tps51632-regulator.h
+include/linux/regulator/tps62360.h
+include/linux/regulator/tps6507x.h
+include/linux/regulator/userspace-consumer.h
+include/linux/platform_data/lp8755.h
+
+drivers/regulator/
diff --git a/dependencies b/dependencies
index 44e23da..0ab99d4 100644
--- a/dependencies
+++ b/dependencies
@@ -46,6 +46,28 @@ HDMI 3.2
DRM 3.2
DRM_TTM 3.2

+# Regulator
+# Because of -EPROBE_DEFER see commit d1c3414c and note that
+# we can't backport the core regulator as its part of the core
+# vmlinux.
+REGULATOR 3.4
+# requires some work
+REGULATOR_ARIZONA DISABLE
+REGULATOR_MAX8973 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_MAX77686 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_MAX8997 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_RC5T583 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_TPS62360 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_TPS65910 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_TPS65090 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_TPS65217 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_TPS6586X DISABLE
+REGULATOR_WM831X DISABLE
+REGULATOR_WM8350 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_PALMAS DISABLE
+REGULATOR_DA9055 DISABLE
+REGULATOR_S5M8767 DISABLE
+
# This requires proc_create(), and that doesn't exist before 2.6.24
LIBIPW_DEBUG 2.6.25

@@ -71,6 +93,11 @@ BCMA_DRIVER_GPIO 3.0
# (rfkill-regulator.h) that we don't backport
# right now, so make it depend on 3.0
RFKILL_REGULATOR 3.0
+# drivers/regulator/ab3100.c and drivers/mfd/ab3100-core.c
+# both depend on include/linux/mfd/ab3100.h and we should
+# only backport REGULATOR_AB3100 if the mfd driver is
+# backported as well.
+REGULATOR_AB3100 3.9

# This is a fun one ... the implementation of this
# uses subdir-ccflags-$(CONFIG_BRCMDBG) which was
diff --git a/patches/collateral-evolutions/regulator/0001-bt8xx-rename-dst-ops.patch b/patches/collateral-evolutions/regulator/0001-bt8xx-rename-dst-ops.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2e8e1b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/patches/collateral-evolutions/regulator/0001-bt8xx-rename-dst-ops.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+This will be sent upstream... there is a conflict with these
+names and another symbol from older kernels.
+
+--- a/drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/dst.c
++++ b/drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/dst.c
[email protected]@ -1544,7 +1544,7 @@ static int dst_send_burst(struct dvb_fro
+ }
+
+
+-static int dst_init(struct dvb_frontend *fe)
++static int bt8xx_dst_init(struct dvb_frontend *fe)
+ {
+ struct dst_state *state = fe->demodulator_priv;
+
[email protected]@ -1707,7 +1707,7 @@ static int dst_get_frontend(struct dvb_f
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+-static void dst_release(struct dvb_frontend *fe)
++static void bt8xx_dst_release(struct dvb_frontend *fe)
+ {
+ struct dst_state *state = fe->demodulator_priv;
+ if (state->dst_ca) {
[email protected]@ -1776,8 +1776,8 @@ static struct dvb_frontend_ops dst_dvbt_
+ FE_CAN_GUARD_INTERVAL_AUTO
+ },
+
+- .release = dst_release,
+- .init = dst_init,
++ .release = bt8xx_dst_release,
++ .init = bt8xx_dst_init,
+ .tune = dst_tune_frontend,
+ .set_frontend = dst_set_frontend,
+ .get_frontend = dst_get_frontend,
[email protected]@ -1801,8 +1801,8 @@ static struct dvb_frontend_ops dst_dvbs_
+ .caps = FE_CAN_FEC_AUTO | FE_CAN_QPSK
+ },
+
+- .release = dst_release,
+- .init = dst_init,
++ .release = bt8xx_dst_release,
++ .init = bt8xx_dst_init,
+ .tune = dst_tune_frontend,
+ .set_frontend = dst_set_frontend,
+ .get_frontend = dst_get_frontend,
[email protected]@ -1834,8 +1834,8 @@ static struct dvb_frontend_ops dst_dvbc_
+ FE_CAN_QAM_256
+ },
+
+- .release = dst_release,
+- .init = dst_init,
++ .release = bt8xx_dst_release,
++ .init = bt8xx_dst_init,
+ .tune = dst_tune_frontend,
+ .set_frontend = dst_set_frontend,
+ .get_frontend = dst_get_frontend,
[email protected]@ -1857,8 +1857,8 @@ static struct dvb_frontend_ops dst_atsc_
+ .caps = FE_CAN_FEC_AUTO | FE_CAN_QAM_AUTO | FE_CAN_QAM_64 | FE_CAN_QAM_256 | FE_CAN_8VSB
+ },
+
+- .release = dst_release,
+- .init = dst_init,
++ .release = bt8xx_dst_release,
++ .init = bt8xx_dst_init,
+ .tune = dst_tune_frontend,
+ .set_frontend = dst_set_frontend,
+ .get_frontend = dst_get_frontend,
--
1.7.10.4


2013-04-13 21:01:25

by Johannes Berg

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] backports: add support for voltage / current regulator drivers

On Sat, 2013-04-13 at 07:13 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]>
>
> This backports the latest regulator drivers for kernels >= 3.4.
> We enable the regulator only on kernels >= 3.4 given that
> it relies on the new probe deferral mechanism which would
> otherwise mean having to support drivers that do not probe
> correctly. Note that 3.2 had a base regulator implementation
> but that was just stubs.

Applied.

johannes

2013-04-15 16:25:37

by Mark Brown

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] backports: add support for voltage / current regulator drivers

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 07:13:42AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> This backports the latest regulator drivers for kernels >= 3.4.
> We enable the regulator only on kernels >= 3.4 given that
> it relies on the new probe deferral mechanism which would
> otherwise mean having to support drivers that do not probe

There's no great reliance on deferred probes here...

> correctly. Note that 3.2 had a base regulator implementation
> but that was just stubs.

I'm sorry, what on earth makes you say that? The regulator API has been
usefully functional since it was merged.

> I did look into a way to upgrade the core kernel regulator
> but given that it relies on late_initcall() and core_initcall()
> we can't update this part of the kernel. I even looked at
> using ksplice for this but it seems ksplice can't be used to
> update init sections on the vmlinux ELF. I also haven't much
> updates to these routines since 3.4 except for 86f5fcfc.

Again I'm not sure what you're talking about here?


Attachments:
(No filename) (0.98 kB)
signature.asc (836.00 B)
Digital signature
Download all attachments

2013-04-15 16:27:00

by Mark Brown

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] backports: add support for voltage / current regulator drivers

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:01:18PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-04-13 at 07:13 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> > This backports the latest regulator drivers for kernels >= 3.4.
> > We enable the regulator only on kernels >= 3.4 given that
> > it relies on the new probe deferral mechanism which would
> > otherwise mean having to support drivers that do not probe
> > correctly. Note that 3.2 had a base regulator implementation
> > but that was just stubs.

> Applied.

Please let's at least discuss the issues here, I'm not sure what this is
supposed to do but the analysis of the subsystem didn't seem complete.


Attachments:
(No filename) (632.00 B)
signature.asc (836.00 B)
Digital signature
Download all attachments

2013-04-15 16:34:02

by Johannes Berg

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] backports: add support for voltage / current regulator drivers

On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 17:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:01:18PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-04-13 at 07:13 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > > This backports the latest regulator drivers for kernels >= 3.4.
> > > We enable the regulator only on kernels >= 3.4 given that
> > > it relies on the new probe deferral mechanism which would
> > > otherwise mean having to support drivers that do not probe
> > > correctly. Note that 3.2 had a base regulator implementation
> > > but that was just stubs.
>
> > Applied.
>
> Please let's at least discuss the issues here, I'm not sure what this is
> supposed to do but the analysis of the subsystem didn't seem complete.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. For some reason (media drivers
related?) Luis decided that it was worth including this in the backports
project (see http://backports.wiki.kernel.org) and I am currently
maintaining the git tree for that, at least while I was doing some
refactoring.

I do notice that it doesn't quite work, there are a lot of unresolved
symbols :)

If you think you'd be impacted by this because users demand support from
you for the backport or whatever I can revert this (or probably just
remove it from the copy list for now.) I don't really have an opinion on
it, I'm doing this because I'm interested in one specific wireless
driver.

johannes

2013-04-22 13:11:08

by Mark Brown

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] backports: add support for voltage / current regulator drivers

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 06:33:52PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 17:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Please let's at least discuss the issues here, I'm not sure what this is
> > supposed to do but the analysis of the subsystem didn't seem complete.

> I wouldn't worry about it too much. For some reason (media drivers
> related?) Luis decided that it was worth including this in the backports
> project (see http://backports.wiki.kernel.org) and I am currently
> maintaining the git tree for that, at least while I was doing some
> refactoring.

> I do notice that it doesn't quite work, there are a lot of unresolved
> symbols :)

> If you think you'd be impacted by this because users demand support from
> you for the backport or whatever I can revert this (or probably just
> remove it from the copy list for now.) I don't really have an opinion on
> it, I'm doing this because I'm interested in one specific wireless
> driver.

Well, I'd much rather have a sane backport if we're going to have one -
whatever problem is being solved here it seems likely that someone else
will have the same need and if there's a general kernel project for this
(which preusmably has some overlap with LTSI?) it seems bad to have one
that people have to be warned away from using.

Given how big the misunderstandings in the cover letter for Luis' patch
were I'd be really concerned about seeing this going into anything
officialish without some discussion about what's going on.

2013-04-23 06:18:48

by Luis R. Rodriguez

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] backports: add support for voltage / current regulator drivers

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 06:33:52PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 17:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > Please let's at least discuss the issues here, I'm not sure what this is
>> > supposed to do but the analysis of the subsystem didn't seem complete.
>
>> I wouldn't worry about it too much. For some reason (media drivers
>> related?) Luis decided that it was worth including this in the backports
>> project (see http://backports.wiki.kernel.org) and I am currently
>> maintaining the git tree for that, at least while I was doing some
>> refactoring.
>
>> I do notice that it doesn't quite work, there are a lot of unresolved
>> symbols :)
>
>> If you think you'd be impacted by this because users demand support from
>> you for the backport or whatever I can revert this (or probably just
>> remove it from the copy list for now.) I don't really have an opinion on
>> it, I'm doing this because I'm interested in one specific wireless
>> driver.
>
> Well, I'd much rather have a sane backport if we're going to have one -
> whatever problem is being solved here it seems likely that someone else
> will have the same need and if there's a general kernel project for this
> (which preusmably has some overlap with LTSI?) it seems bad to have one
> that people have to be warned away from using.

LTSI is for folks who stick to a kernel revision. backports project is
for folks who do not have control over what kernel they are on -- yet
or as a model. backports provides support for backporting new kernel
drivers down to any range of kernels. We strive for 802.11 down to
2.6.24, for BT 2.6.27, DRM to 3.2, regulator 3.2, Media 3.2. There are
both daily snapshots based on linux-next, and stable release snapshots
based on linux-stable. This enables Linux distributions, either
rolling or non-rolling, to embraces released bast on latest and
greatest drivers or based on stable releases.

The target here was not to make an assessment over quality of work on
the subsystem but instead more on the backportability nature of it. In
this case the regulator ends up using some data structures defined
upon late_initcall() and core_initcall() which implicates what you can
backport unless you can genuinely provide gaurantee a proper backport
of regulator as a module and forcing drivers to use a separate
namespace or somehow modifying the kernel's init calls with things
like ksplice. Neither of these two are possible today and as such what
is backported for regulator is things that do not depend on these
calls having fired off as is today. 3.2 as a target seemed reasonable
given that DRM was backported down to 3.2 and so was media.

> Given how big the misunderstandings in the cover letter for Luis' patch
> were I'd be really concerned about seeing this going into anything
> officialish without some discussion about what's going on.

Official? Huh?

Luis