Hi Stephen,
On 08/05/2016 12:04 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:

On 07/19/2016 06:51 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:

quoted

In order to support eh Qualcomm MDM9615 SoC, add support for the

s/eh/the/

quoted

PM8018 RPM regulator in the qcom_rpm-regulator driver.

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <redacted>

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
index e254272..0734a5f 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c

@@ -70,6 +70,40 @@ struct qcom_rpm_reg {
 	bool supports_force_mode_bypass;
 };
 
+static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_ldo_parts = {
+	.request_len	= 2,
+	.uV		= { 0, 0x007FFFFF,  0},
+	.pd		= { 0, 0x00800000, 23},
+	.pc		= { 0, 0x0F000000, 24},
+	.pf		= { 0, 0xF0000000, 28},
+	.ip		= { 1, 0x000003FF,  0},
+	.ia		= { 1, 0x000FFC00, 10},
+	.fm		= { 1, 0x00700000, 20},
+};
+
+static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_smps_parts = {
+	.request_len	= 2,
+	.uV		= {  0, 0x007FFFFF,  0},
+	.pd		= {  0, 0x00800000, 23},
+	.pc		= {  0, 0x0F000000, 24},
+	.pf		= {  0, 0xF0000000, 28},
+	.ip		= {  1, 0x000003FF,  0},
+	.ia		= {  1, 0x000FFC00, 10},
+	.fm		= {  1, 0x00700000, 20},
+	.pm		= {  1, 0x00800000, 23},
+	.freq		= {  1, 0x1F000000, 24},
+	.freq_clk_src	= {  1, 0x60000000, 29},
+};
+
+static struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8018_switch_parts = {
+	.request_len	= 1,
+	.enable_state	= {  0, 0x00000001,  0},
+	.pd		= {  0, 0x00000002,  1},
+	.pc		= {  0, 0x0000003C,  2},
+	.pf		= {  0, 0x000003C0,  6},
+	.hpm		= {  0, 0x00000C00, 10},
+};
+

These are all the same as the rpm8960 ones, so why don't we reuse those
structures?

Indeed, I will reuse them.

quoted

 static const struct rpm_reg_parts rpm8660_ldo_parts = {
 	.request_len    = 2,
 	.mV             = { 0, 0x00000FFF,  0 },

@@ -448,6 +482,44 @@ static struct regulator_ops switch_ops = {
 };
 
 /*
+ * PM8018 regulators
+ */
+static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_pldo = {
+	.desc.linear_ranges = pldo_ranges,
+	.desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(pldo_ranges),
+	.desc.n_voltages = 161,
+	.desc.ops = &uV_ops,
+	.parts = &rpm8018_ldo_parts,
+	.supports_force_mode_auto = false,
+	.supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
+};
+
+static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_nldo = {
+	.desc.linear_ranges = nldo_ranges,
+	.desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(nldo_ranges),
+	.desc.n_voltages = 64,
+	.desc.ops = &uV_ops,
+	.parts = &rpm8018_ldo_parts,
+	.supports_force_mode_auto = false,
+	.supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
+};
+
+static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_smps = {
+	.desc.linear_ranges = smps_ranges,
+	.desc.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(smps_ranges),
+	.desc.n_voltages = 154,
+	.desc.ops = &uV_ops,
+	.parts = &rpm8018_smps_parts,
+	.supports_force_mode_auto = false,
+	.supports_force_mode_bypass = false,
+};
+
+static const struct qcom_rpm_reg pm8018_switch = {
+	.desc.ops = &switch_ops,
+	.parts = &rpm8018_switch_parts,
+};
+

These are all the same as the pm8921 ones too? So just use those instead?

They look but the supports_force_mode_bypass is set to "true" for pm8921.
These pm8018 structures are still needed.

We should probably rethink this design and have these structures based
on PMIC derivatives instead of SoCs because things are quite similar
across many PMICs.

This would help to support the huge pmic family !

Neil

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.