2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2023 Axis Communications AB
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Driver for Texas Instruments TPS6287x PMIC.
|
|
|
|
* Datasheet: https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps62873.pdf
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/err.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/i2c.h>
|
2023-07-14 11:49:28 -06:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/module.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/regmap.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/regulator/of_regulator.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/bitfield.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/linear_range.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_VSET 0x00
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_CTRL1 0x01
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_CTRL1_VRAMP GENMASK(1, 0)
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_CTRL1_FPWMEN BIT(4)
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_CTRL1_SWEN BIT(5)
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_CTRL2 0x02
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_CTRL2_VRANGE GENMASK(3, 2)
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_CTRL3 0x03
|
|
|
|
#define TPS6287X_STATUS 0x04
|
|
|
|
|
2025-06-29 17:58:22 +08:00
|
|
|
static bool tps6287x_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return reg == TPS6287X_STATUS;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
static const struct regmap_config tps6287x_regmap_config = {
|
|
|
|
.reg_bits = 8,
|
|
|
|
.val_bits = 8,
|
|
|
|
.max_register = TPS6287X_STATUS,
|
2025-06-29 17:58:22 +08:00
|
|
|
.cache_type = REGCACHE_MAPLE,
|
|
|
|
.volatile_reg = tps6287x_volatile_reg,
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static const struct linear_range tps6287x_voltage_ranges[] = {
|
|
|
|
LINEAR_RANGE(400000, 0, 0xFF, 1250),
|
|
|
|
LINEAR_RANGE(400000, 0, 0xFF, 2500),
|
|
|
|
LINEAR_RANGE(400000, 0, 0xFF, 5000),
|
|
|
|
LINEAR_RANGE(800000, 0, 0xFF, 10000),
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static const unsigned int tps6287x_voltage_range_sel[] = {
|
2023-07-14 16:14:07 +08:00
|
|
|
0x0, 0x1, 0x2, 0x3
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
regulator: TPS6287X: Use min/max uV to get VRANGE
Changing voltage might ignore slew rate and cause a current surge.
With current implementation the driver will get the regulator to change
the voltage range used during run time. According to communication I
have had with Texas Instruments, this is not intended, since the
Dynamic Voltage Scaling in the hardware is only designed to work
within a voltage range. The current implementation will therefore
ignore the slew rate that is defined in devicetree when the voltage
range is changed during use.
The current implementation will always select a voltage in the most
accurate range that can reach that voltage even though multiple ranges
are able to reach that voltage. There are 4 Voltage ranges with the
following reach:
0b00: 0.4-0.71875V (1.25mV step size)
0b01: 0.4-1.0375V (2.5mV)
0b10: 0.4-1.675V (5mV)
0b11: 0.8-3.3V (10mV)
This in practice means that a change from below to above 0.71875V will
use the smallest range(0b00) for the values below and the second
smallest range(0b01) for the voltages above (Up to 1.675V). I have
timed how long it takes to go from below 0.71875V to above. The
increase was 100mV which, with the slew rate set to 1250µV/µs. This
in theory should take 80µs to do. With the current implementation, it
takes 10µs on my hardware. Doing the same test with the slew rate set
to 5000µV/µs, which should take 20µs, also only takes 10µs to do on
my hardware. Not only is this not in line with the technical
specification for the regulator. It also causes a current surge. Which
when calculating the output current, as described in the technical
specification, compared to what I could observe on my hardware the real
output is ~1A higher (~1.2A) than what I calculated it to be(~0.2A).
I tested also transitioning from a bigger to a smaller range, and the
results were the same.
Instead, let's limit the voltage range to a single one, which is in
line with the intended use of the regulator. This is done by looking
up the minimum and maximum requested voltage specified in devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Andreasson <jonas.andreasson@axis.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250121-tps-fix-v2-1-50cc4d0f1635@axis.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
2025-01-21 15:37:50 +01:00
|
|
|
static const unsigned int tps6287x_voltage_range_prefix[] = {
|
|
|
|
0x000, 0x100, 0x200, 0x300
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
static const unsigned int tps6287x_ramp_table[] = {
|
|
|
|
10000, 5000, 1250, 500
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
regulator: TPS6287X: Use min/max uV to get VRANGE
Changing voltage might ignore slew rate and cause a current surge.
With current implementation the driver will get the regulator to change
the voltage range used during run time. According to communication I
have had with Texas Instruments, this is not intended, since the
Dynamic Voltage Scaling in the hardware is only designed to work
within a voltage range. The current implementation will therefore
ignore the slew rate that is defined in devicetree when the voltage
range is changed during use.
The current implementation will always select a voltage in the most
accurate range that can reach that voltage even though multiple ranges
are able to reach that voltage. There are 4 Voltage ranges with the
following reach:
0b00: 0.4-0.71875V (1.25mV step size)
0b01: 0.4-1.0375V (2.5mV)
0b10: 0.4-1.675V (5mV)
0b11: 0.8-3.3V (10mV)
This in practice means that a change from below to above 0.71875V will
use the smallest range(0b00) for the values below and the second
smallest range(0b01) for the voltages above (Up to 1.675V). I have
timed how long it takes to go from below 0.71875V to above. The
increase was 100mV which, with the slew rate set to 1250µV/µs. This
in theory should take 80µs to do. With the current implementation, it
takes 10µs on my hardware. Doing the same test with the slew rate set
to 5000µV/µs, which should take 20µs, also only takes 10µs to do on
my hardware. Not only is this not in line with the technical
specification for the regulator. It also causes a current surge. Which
when calculating the output current, as described in the technical
specification, compared to what I could observe on my hardware the real
output is ~1A higher (~1.2A) than what I calculated it to be(~0.2A).
I tested also transitioning from a bigger to a smaller range, and the
results were the same.
Instead, let's limit the voltage range to a single one, which is in
line with the intended use of the regulator. This is done by looking
up the minimum and maximum requested voltage specified in devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Andreasson <jonas.andreasson@axis.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250121-tps-fix-v2-1-50cc4d0f1635@axis.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
2025-01-21 15:37:50 +01:00
|
|
|
struct tps6287x_reg_data {
|
|
|
|
int range;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static int tps6287x_best_range(struct regulator_config *config, const struct regulator_desc *desc)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
const struct linear_range *r;
|
|
|
|
int i;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!config->init_data->constraints.apply_uV)
|
|
|
|
return -1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (i = 0; i < desc->n_linear_ranges; i++) {
|
|
|
|
r = &desc->linear_ranges[i];
|
|
|
|
if (r->min <= config->init_data->constraints.min_uV &&
|
|
|
|
config->init_data->constraints.max_uV <= linear_range_get_max_value(r))
|
|
|
|
return i;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return -1;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
static int tps6287x_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned int mode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned int val;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch (mode) {
|
|
|
|
case REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL:
|
|
|
|
val = 0;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case REGULATOR_MODE_FAST:
|
|
|
|
val = TPS6287X_CTRL1_FPWMEN;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return regmap_update_bits(rdev->regmap, TPS6287X_CTRL1,
|
|
|
|
TPS6287X_CTRL1_FPWMEN, val);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static unsigned int tps6287x_get_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned int val;
|
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret = regmap_read(rdev->regmap, TPS6287X_CTRL1, &val);
|
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return (val & TPS6287X_CTRL1_FPWMEN) ? REGULATOR_MODE_FAST :
|
|
|
|
REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static unsigned int tps6287x_of_map_mode(unsigned int mode)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
switch (mode) {
|
|
|
|
case REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL:
|
|
|
|
case REGULATOR_MODE_FAST:
|
|
|
|
return mode;
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
return REGULATOR_MODE_INVALID;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
regulator: TPS6287X: Use min/max uV to get VRANGE
Changing voltage might ignore slew rate and cause a current surge.
With current implementation the driver will get the regulator to change
the voltage range used during run time. According to communication I
have had with Texas Instruments, this is not intended, since the
Dynamic Voltage Scaling in the hardware is only designed to work
within a voltage range. The current implementation will therefore
ignore the slew rate that is defined in devicetree when the voltage
range is changed during use.
The current implementation will always select a voltage in the most
accurate range that can reach that voltage even though multiple ranges
are able to reach that voltage. There are 4 Voltage ranges with the
following reach:
0b00: 0.4-0.71875V (1.25mV step size)
0b01: 0.4-1.0375V (2.5mV)
0b10: 0.4-1.675V (5mV)
0b11: 0.8-3.3V (10mV)
This in practice means that a change from below to above 0.71875V will
use the smallest range(0b00) for the values below and the second
smallest range(0b01) for the voltages above (Up to 1.675V). I have
timed how long it takes to go from below 0.71875V to above. The
increase was 100mV which, with the slew rate set to 1250µV/µs. This
in theory should take 80µs to do. With the current implementation, it
takes 10µs on my hardware. Doing the same test with the slew rate set
to 5000µV/µs, which should take 20µs, also only takes 10µs to do on
my hardware. Not only is this not in line with the technical
specification for the regulator. It also causes a current surge. Which
when calculating the output current, as described in the technical
specification, compared to what I could observe on my hardware the real
output is ~1A higher (~1.2A) than what I calculated it to be(~0.2A).
I tested also transitioning from a bigger to a smaller range, and the
results were the same.
Instead, let's limit the voltage range to a single one, which is in
line with the intended use of the regulator. This is done by looking
up the minimum and maximum requested voltage specified in devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Andreasson <jonas.andreasson@axis.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250121-tps-fix-v2-1-50cc4d0f1635@axis.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
2025-01-21 15:37:50 +01:00
|
|
|
static int tps6287x_map_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uV, int max_uV)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
struct tps6287x_reg_data *data = (struct tps6287x_reg_data *)rdev->reg_data;
|
|
|
|
struct linear_range selected_range;
|
|
|
|
int selector, voltage;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!data || data->range == -1)
|
|
|
|
return regulator_map_voltage_pickable_linear_range(rdev, min_uV, max_uV);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
selected_range = rdev->desc->linear_ranges[data->range];
|
|
|
|
selector = DIV_ROUND_UP(min_uV - selected_range.min, selected_range.step);
|
|
|
|
if (selector < selected_range.min_sel || selector > selected_range.max_sel)
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
selector |= tps6287x_voltage_range_prefix[data->range];
|
|
|
|
voltage = rdev->desc->ops->list_voltage(rdev, selector);
|
|
|
|
if (voltage < min_uV || voltage > max_uV)
|
|
|
|
return -EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return selector;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
static const struct regulator_ops tps6287x_regulator_ops = {
|
|
|
|
.enable = regulator_enable_regmap,
|
|
|
|
.disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
|
|
|
|
.set_mode = tps6287x_set_mode,
|
|
|
|
.get_mode = tps6287x_get_mode,
|
|
|
|
.is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
|
|
|
|
.get_voltage_sel = regulator_get_voltage_sel_pickable_regmap,
|
|
|
|
.set_voltage_sel = regulator_set_voltage_sel_pickable_regmap,
|
|
|
|
.list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_pickable_linear_range,
|
regulator: TPS6287X: Use min/max uV to get VRANGE
Changing voltage might ignore slew rate and cause a current surge.
With current implementation the driver will get the regulator to change
the voltage range used during run time. According to communication I
have had with Texas Instruments, this is not intended, since the
Dynamic Voltage Scaling in the hardware is only designed to work
within a voltage range. The current implementation will therefore
ignore the slew rate that is defined in devicetree when the voltage
range is changed during use.
The current implementation will always select a voltage in the most
accurate range that can reach that voltage even though multiple ranges
are able to reach that voltage. There are 4 Voltage ranges with the
following reach:
0b00: 0.4-0.71875V (1.25mV step size)
0b01: 0.4-1.0375V (2.5mV)
0b10: 0.4-1.675V (5mV)
0b11: 0.8-3.3V (10mV)
This in practice means that a change from below to above 0.71875V will
use the smallest range(0b00) for the values below and the second
smallest range(0b01) for the voltages above (Up to 1.675V). I have
timed how long it takes to go from below 0.71875V to above. The
increase was 100mV which, with the slew rate set to 1250µV/µs. This
in theory should take 80µs to do. With the current implementation, it
takes 10µs on my hardware. Doing the same test with the slew rate set
to 5000µV/µs, which should take 20µs, also only takes 10µs to do on
my hardware. Not only is this not in line with the technical
specification for the regulator. It also causes a current surge. Which
when calculating the output current, as described in the technical
specification, compared to what I could observe on my hardware the real
output is ~1A higher (~1.2A) than what I calculated it to be(~0.2A).
I tested also transitioning from a bigger to a smaller range, and the
results were the same.
Instead, let's limit the voltage range to a single one, which is in
line with the intended use of the regulator. This is done by looking
up the minimum and maximum requested voltage specified in devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Andreasson <jonas.andreasson@axis.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250121-tps-fix-v2-1-50cc4d0f1635@axis.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
2025-01-21 15:37:50 +01:00
|
|
|
.map_voltage = tps6287x_map_voltage,
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
.set_ramp_delay = regulator_set_ramp_delay_regmap,
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
2024-09-09 20:56:19 +02:00
|
|
|
static const struct regulator_desc tps6287x_reg = {
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
.name = "tps6287x",
|
|
|
|
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
|
|
|
|
.ops = &tps6287x_regulator_ops,
|
|
|
|
.of_map_mode = tps6287x_of_map_mode,
|
|
|
|
.type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE,
|
|
|
|
.enable_reg = TPS6287X_CTRL1,
|
|
|
|
.enable_mask = TPS6287X_CTRL1_SWEN,
|
|
|
|
.vsel_reg = TPS6287X_VSET,
|
|
|
|
.vsel_mask = 0xFF,
|
|
|
|
.vsel_range_reg = TPS6287X_CTRL2,
|
|
|
|
.vsel_range_mask = TPS6287X_CTRL2_VRANGE,
|
2024-05-20 15:36:55 +03:00
|
|
|
.range_applied_by_vsel = true,
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
.ramp_reg = TPS6287X_CTRL1,
|
|
|
|
.ramp_mask = TPS6287X_CTRL1_VRAMP,
|
|
|
|
.ramp_delay_table = tps6287x_ramp_table,
|
|
|
|
.n_ramp_values = ARRAY_SIZE(tps6287x_ramp_table),
|
2023-08-29 16:04:12 +02:00
|
|
|
.n_voltages = 256 * ARRAY_SIZE(tps6287x_voltage_ranges),
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
.linear_ranges = tps6287x_voltage_ranges,
|
|
|
|
.n_linear_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(tps6287x_voltage_ranges),
|
2023-07-14 16:14:07 +08:00
|
|
|
.linear_range_selectors_bitfield = tps6287x_voltage_range_sel,
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static int tps6287x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
struct device *dev = &i2c->dev;
|
|
|
|
struct regulator_config config = {};
|
regulator: TPS6287X: Use min/max uV to get VRANGE
Changing voltage might ignore slew rate and cause a current surge.
With current implementation the driver will get the regulator to change
the voltage range used during run time. According to communication I
have had with Texas Instruments, this is not intended, since the
Dynamic Voltage Scaling in the hardware is only designed to work
within a voltage range. The current implementation will therefore
ignore the slew rate that is defined in devicetree when the voltage
range is changed during use.
The current implementation will always select a voltage in the most
accurate range that can reach that voltage even though multiple ranges
are able to reach that voltage. There are 4 Voltage ranges with the
following reach:
0b00: 0.4-0.71875V (1.25mV step size)
0b01: 0.4-1.0375V (2.5mV)
0b10: 0.4-1.675V (5mV)
0b11: 0.8-3.3V (10mV)
This in practice means that a change from below to above 0.71875V will
use the smallest range(0b00) for the values below and the second
smallest range(0b01) for the voltages above (Up to 1.675V). I have
timed how long it takes to go from below 0.71875V to above. The
increase was 100mV which, with the slew rate set to 1250µV/µs. This
in theory should take 80µs to do. With the current implementation, it
takes 10µs on my hardware. Doing the same test with the slew rate set
to 5000µV/µs, which should take 20µs, also only takes 10µs to do on
my hardware. Not only is this not in line with the technical
specification for the regulator. It also causes a current surge. Which
when calculating the output current, as described in the technical
specification, compared to what I could observe on my hardware the real
output is ~1A higher (~1.2A) than what I calculated it to be(~0.2A).
I tested also transitioning from a bigger to a smaller range, and the
results were the same.
Instead, let's limit the voltage range to a single one, which is in
line with the intended use of the regulator. This is done by looking
up the minimum and maximum requested voltage specified in devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Andreasson <jonas.andreasson@axis.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250121-tps-fix-v2-1-50cc4d0f1635@axis.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
2025-01-21 15:37:50 +01:00
|
|
|
struct tps6287x_reg_data *reg_data;
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
struct regulator_dev *rdev;
|
|
|
|
|
regulator: TPS6287X: Use min/max uV to get VRANGE
Changing voltage might ignore slew rate and cause a current surge.
With current implementation the driver will get the regulator to change
the voltage range used during run time. According to communication I
have had with Texas Instruments, this is not intended, since the
Dynamic Voltage Scaling in the hardware is only designed to work
within a voltage range. The current implementation will therefore
ignore the slew rate that is defined in devicetree when the voltage
range is changed during use.
The current implementation will always select a voltage in the most
accurate range that can reach that voltage even though multiple ranges
are able to reach that voltage. There are 4 Voltage ranges with the
following reach:
0b00: 0.4-0.71875V (1.25mV step size)
0b01: 0.4-1.0375V (2.5mV)
0b10: 0.4-1.675V (5mV)
0b11: 0.8-3.3V (10mV)
This in practice means that a change from below to above 0.71875V will
use the smallest range(0b00) for the values below and the second
smallest range(0b01) for the voltages above (Up to 1.675V). I have
timed how long it takes to go from below 0.71875V to above. The
increase was 100mV which, with the slew rate set to 1250µV/µs. This
in theory should take 80µs to do. With the current implementation, it
takes 10µs on my hardware. Doing the same test with the slew rate set
to 5000µV/µs, which should take 20µs, also only takes 10µs to do on
my hardware. Not only is this not in line with the technical
specification for the regulator. It also causes a current surge. Which
when calculating the output current, as described in the technical
specification, compared to what I could observe on my hardware the real
output is ~1A higher (~1.2A) than what I calculated it to be(~0.2A).
I tested also transitioning from a bigger to a smaller range, and the
results were the same.
Instead, let's limit the voltage range to a single one, which is in
line with the intended use of the regulator. This is done by looking
up the minimum and maximum requested voltage specified in devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Andreasson <jonas.andreasson@axis.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250121-tps-fix-v2-1-50cc4d0f1635@axis.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
2025-01-21 15:37:50 +01:00
|
|
|
reg_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct tps6287x_reg_data), GFP_KERNEL);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!reg_data)
|
|
|
|
return -ENOMEM;
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
config.regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(i2c, &tps6287x_regmap_config);
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(config.regmap)) {
|
|
|
|
dev_err(dev, "Failed to init i2c\n");
|
|
|
|
return PTR_ERR(config.regmap);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
config.dev = dev;
|
|
|
|
config.of_node = dev->of_node;
|
|
|
|
config.init_data = of_get_regulator_init_data(dev, dev->of_node,
|
|
|
|
&tps6287x_reg);
|
|
|
|
|
regulator: TPS6287X: Use min/max uV to get VRANGE
Changing voltage might ignore slew rate and cause a current surge.
With current implementation the driver will get the regulator to change
the voltage range used during run time. According to communication I
have had with Texas Instruments, this is not intended, since the
Dynamic Voltage Scaling in the hardware is only designed to work
within a voltage range. The current implementation will therefore
ignore the slew rate that is defined in devicetree when the voltage
range is changed during use.
The current implementation will always select a voltage in the most
accurate range that can reach that voltage even though multiple ranges
are able to reach that voltage. There are 4 Voltage ranges with the
following reach:
0b00: 0.4-0.71875V (1.25mV step size)
0b01: 0.4-1.0375V (2.5mV)
0b10: 0.4-1.675V (5mV)
0b11: 0.8-3.3V (10mV)
This in practice means that a change from below to above 0.71875V will
use the smallest range(0b00) for the values below and the second
smallest range(0b01) for the voltages above (Up to 1.675V). I have
timed how long it takes to go from below 0.71875V to above. The
increase was 100mV which, with the slew rate set to 1250µV/µs. This
in theory should take 80µs to do. With the current implementation, it
takes 10µs on my hardware. Doing the same test with the slew rate set
to 5000µV/µs, which should take 20µs, also only takes 10µs to do on
my hardware. Not only is this not in line with the technical
specification for the regulator. It also causes a current surge. Which
when calculating the output current, as described in the technical
specification, compared to what I could observe on my hardware the real
output is ~1A higher (~1.2A) than what I calculated it to be(~0.2A).
I tested also transitioning from a bigger to a smaller range, and the
results were the same.
Instead, let's limit the voltage range to a single one, which is in
line with the intended use of the regulator. This is done by looking
up the minimum and maximum requested voltage specified in devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Andreasson <jonas.andreasson@axis.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250121-tps-fix-v2-1-50cc4d0f1635@axis.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
2025-01-21 15:37:50 +01:00
|
|
|
reg_data->range = tps6287x_best_range(&config, &tps6287x_reg);
|
|
|
|
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
rdev = devm_regulator_register(dev, &tps6287x_reg, &config);
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
|
|
|
|
dev_err(dev, "Failed to register regulator\n");
|
|
|
|
return PTR_ERR(rdev);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
regulator: TPS6287X: Use min/max uV to get VRANGE
Changing voltage might ignore slew rate and cause a current surge.
With current implementation the driver will get the regulator to change
the voltage range used during run time. According to communication I
have had with Texas Instruments, this is not intended, since the
Dynamic Voltage Scaling in the hardware is only designed to work
within a voltage range. The current implementation will therefore
ignore the slew rate that is defined in devicetree when the voltage
range is changed during use.
The current implementation will always select a voltage in the most
accurate range that can reach that voltage even though multiple ranges
are able to reach that voltage. There are 4 Voltage ranges with the
following reach:
0b00: 0.4-0.71875V (1.25mV step size)
0b01: 0.4-1.0375V (2.5mV)
0b10: 0.4-1.675V (5mV)
0b11: 0.8-3.3V (10mV)
This in practice means that a change from below to above 0.71875V will
use the smallest range(0b00) for the values below and the second
smallest range(0b01) for the voltages above (Up to 1.675V). I have
timed how long it takes to go from below 0.71875V to above. The
increase was 100mV which, with the slew rate set to 1250µV/µs. This
in theory should take 80µs to do. With the current implementation, it
takes 10µs on my hardware. Doing the same test with the slew rate set
to 5000µV/µs, which should take 20µs, also only takes 10µs to do on
my hardware. Not only is this not in line with the technical
specification for the regulator. It also causes a current surge. Which
when calculating the output current, as described in the technical
specification, compared to what I could observe on my hardware the real
output is ~1A higher (~1.2A) than what I calculated it to be(~0.2A).
I tested also transitioning from a bigger to a smaller range, and the
results were the same.
Instead, let's limit the voltage range to a single one, which is in
line with the intended use of the regulator. This is done by looking
up the minimum and maximum requested voltage specified in devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Andreasson <jonas.andreasson@axis.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250121-tps-fix-v2-1-50cc4d0f1635@axis.com
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
2025-01-21 15:37:50 +01:00
|
|
|
rdev->reg_data = (void *)reg_data;
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
dev_dbg(dev, "Probed regulator\n");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static const struct of_device_id tps6287x_dt_ids[] = {
|
|
|
|
{ .compatible = "ti,tps62870", },
|
|
|
|
{ .compatible = "ti,tps62871", },
|
|
|
|
{ .compatible = "ti,tps62872", },
|
|
|
|
{ .compatible = "ti,tps62873", },
|
|
|
|
{ }
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tps6287x_dt_ids);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static const struct i2c_device_id tps6287x_i2c_id[] = {
|
2024-05-13 10:05:26 +02:00
|
|
|
{ "tps62870" },
|
|
|
|
{ "tps62871" },
|
|
|
|
{ "tps62872" },
|
|
|
|
{ "tps62873" },
|
|
|
|
{}
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, tps6287x_i2c_id);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static struct i2c_driver tps6287x_regulator_driver = {
|
|
|
|
.driver = {
|
|
|
|
.name = "tps6287x",
|
|
|
|
.of_match_table = tps6287x_dt_ids,
|
|
|
|
},
|
2023-06-11 22:35:59 +02:00
|
|
|
.probe = tps6287x_i2c_probe,
|
2023-05-08 15:14:08 +02:00
|
|
|
.id_table = tps6287x_i2c_id,
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
module_i2c_driver(tps6287x_regulator_driver);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MODULE_AUTHOR("Mårten Lindahl <marten.lindahl@axis.com>");
|
|
|
|
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Regulator driver for TI TPS6287X PMIC");
|
|
|
|
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
|