[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subject[RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework
    Hello all

    See previous series for some background context [1]

    Some x86 laptops with ACPI tables designed for Windows have a TPS68470
    PMIC providing regulators and clocks to camera modules. The DSDT tables for
    those cameras lack any power control methods, declaring only a
    dependency on the ACPI device representing the TPS68470. This leaves the
    regulator framework with no means of determining appropriate voltages for the
    regulators provided by the PMIC, or of determining which regulators relate to
    which of the sensor's requested supplies.

    This series is a prototype of an emulation of the device tree regulator
    initialisation and lookup functions, using software nodes. Software nodes
    relating to each regulator are registered as children of the TPS68470's ACPI
    firmware node. Those regulators have properties describing their constraints
    (for example "regulator-min-microvolt"). Similarly, software nodes are
    registered and assigned as secondary to the Camera's firmware node - these
    software nodes have reference properties named after the supply in the same
    way as device tree's phandles, for example "avdd-supply", and linking to the
    software node assigned to the appropriate regulator. We can then use those
    constraints to specify the appropriate voltages and the references to allow the
    camera drivers to look up the correct regulator device.

    Although not included in this series, I would plan to use a similar method for
    linking the clocks provided by the TPS68470 to the sensor so that it can be
    discovered too.

    I'm posting this to see if people agree it's a good approach for tackling the
    problem; I may be overthinking this and there's a much easier way that I should
    be looking at instead. It will have knock-ons in the cio2-bridge code [2], as
    that is adding software nodes to the same sensors to connect them to the media
    graph. Similarly, is the board file an acceptable solution, or should we just
    define the configuration for these devices (there's three orf our laptop models
    in scope) in int3472-tps68470 instead?



    Daniel Scally (2):
    regulator: Add support for software node connections
    platform/surface: Add Surface Go 2 board file

    drivers/platform/surface/Kconfig | 10 ++
    drivers/platform/surface/Makefile | 1 +
    drivers/platform/surface/surface_go_2.c | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++
    drivers/regulator/Kconfig | 6 +
    drivers/regulator/Makefile | 1 +
    drivers/regulator/core.c | 23 ++++
    drivers/regulator/swnode_regulator.c | 111 +++++++++++++++++
    include/linux/regulator/swnode_regulator.h | 33 +++++
    9 files changed, 326 insertions(+)
    create mode 100644 drivers/platform/surface/surface_go_2.c
    create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/swnode_regulator.c
    create mode 100644 include/linux/regulator/swnode_regulator.h


     \ /
      Last update: 2021-07-09 00:42    [W:3.082 / U:0.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site