Subject: [PATCH 01/10] ARM: tegra: Add AS3722 PMIC on Venice2

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Warren)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:57:14 -0700

On 12/20/2013 03:46 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Friday 20 December 2013 03:55 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:23:28PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> On Friday 20 December 2013 01:54 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2013 09:06 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> (Laxman, as an aside, I'm not sure why you're upstreaming patches that
>>>> don't exactly match the existing kernel support for this board...)
>>> I did not get this based on what context it is. Can you please elaborate
>>> where I am missing the stuff?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-venice2.dts
>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-venice2.dts
>>>>> +                sd0 {
>>>>> +                    regulator-name = "vdd_cpu";
>>>>> +                    regulator-min-microvolt = <700000>;
>>>>> +                    regulator-max-microvolt = <1350000>;
>>>> Laxman's patch has:
>>>>
>>>>                       regulator-max-microvolt = <1400000>;
>>> We have the Laguna platform on which Android and L4T is running fine.
>>> This
>>> is based on same PMIC used for Venice2. As we are running the more cpu
>>> stress on Laguna, I took this parameter from the Laguna Power tree
>>> where it
>>> is maximum 1.4V. Chrome have maximum as 1.35mV.
>> Whether this is used on Android, ChromeOS or L4T doesn't matter at all.
>> It specifies hardware constraints and thus must be agnostic of the OS
>> and workload.
>>
>> Also this file describes the power tree for Venice2, so using values
>> from Laguna is wrong, no matter how similar they are.
>>
> 
> Here, I used term "similar" means the which rail is feeding to Tegra's
> which vdd?
> So by this, if AMS SD0 is feeding to Tegra vdd-cpu then it should be
> same for Laguna.

Look, this situation is very simple. This file describe Venice2. It
doesn't matter whether Laguna "should be" similar to Venice2 or not, the
file needs to describe Venice2 and not Laguna.

Equally, we have a downstream kernel that fully supports Venice2. There
is therefore absolutely ZERO reason why we should use the downstream
Laguna board support to create the upstream Venice2 board support,
rather than using the downstream Venice2 board support to create the
upstream Venice2 board support.

Please do let me know that you fully understand this issue. If not,
future patches from you are going to need a heck of a lot more detailed
review and manual checking, rather than my trusting you got it right.