Subject: [PATCH V4 1/3] OPP: Redefine bindings to overcome shortcomings

From: [email-masked] (Nishanth Menon)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 11:34:13 -0500

On 05/13/2015 11:21 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:14:07AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 
>> To illustrate: What does it mean for a driver using regulator API?
>> Attempt X <-> (X+Y), if that fails (example PMIC SMPS max < X), try
>> (X-Y)<->(X)? If yes, then we do expect (X-Y)<->(X+Y) should be stable
>> for all operating conditions for the device, correct? If this is is
>> not stable at (X-Y), then we have a wrong specification for the device
>> for claiming X +/- Y is a valid range for the device.
> 
> We have an explicit regulator API call for setting by tolerance which
> tries to get as close as possible to the target voltage (currently the
> implementation is very cheap and nasty but ideally it'll get improved).
> 

Thanks - I think the original implementation was triggered by the old
"voltage-tolerance" mess, so wont be too surprised.

With respect to the property itself, I still am not completely
convinced that having typ actually helps. but having it does not hurt
either, since min could be == typ in SoC description if desired.

So, since I dont strongly feel either way here to reject things
completely, and supposedly, it does help some other SoC vendors(which
I am not convinced how), will leave the discussion alone for the moment.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon