[PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during initialization

Benjamin Bara posted 13 patches 2 years, 5 months ago
[PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during initialization
Posted by Benjamin Bara 2 years, 5 months ago
From: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>

It can happen that monitors are activated before the kernel is started,
e.g. by bootloader or by OTP. If monitoring workarounds are active on a
regulator, the core shouldn't perform the state changes without applying
the workaround to the regulator. Therefore, warn the user already during
initialization that the device-tree should be adapted.

Warning can be fixed by enabling (or disabling) monitoring in the DT,
e.g.:
regulator-uv-protection-microvolt = <1>;
or
regulator-ov-error-microvolt = <0>;

Constraints regarding the monitoring of a regulator can usually be found
in the docu.

Signed-off-by: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index ca5d6ba889dc..9bddab17450e 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -1564,6 +1564,47 @@ static int set_machine_constraints(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 		}
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * When the core is in charge of handling monitoring workarounds,
+	 * it is essential to know if a monitor is already active during
+	 * initialization.
+	 */
+	if (rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_disabled ||
+	    rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_set_higher ||
+	    rdev->desc->mon_disable_reg_set_lower ||
+	    rdev->desc->mon_unsupported_reg_modes) {
+		unsigned int monitor_state = REGULATOR_MONITOR_NONE;
+
+		ret = ops->get_active_protections(rdev, &monitor_state);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
+
+		if (!rdev->constraints->over_voltage_detection &&
+		    (monitor_state & REGULATOR_MONITOR_OVER_VOLTAGE)) {
+			rdev_err(rdev, "dt unaware of active %s monitor!\n",
+				       "over-voltage");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+		if (!rdev->constraints->under_voltage_detection &&
+		    (monitor_state & REGULATOR_MONITOR_UNDER_VOLTAGE)) {
+			rdev_err(rdev, "dt unaware of active %s monitor!\n",
+				       "under-voltage");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+		if (!rdev->constraints->over_current_detection &&
+		    (monitor_state & REGULATOR_MONITOR_OVER_CURRENT)) {
+			rdev_err(rdev, "dt unaware of active %s monitor!\n",
+				       "over-current");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+		if (!rdev->constraints->over_temp_detection &&
+		    (monitor_state & REGULATOR_MONITOR_OVER_TEMPERATURE)) {
+			rdev_err(rdev, "dt unaware of active %s monitor!\n",
+				       "over-temperature");
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+	}
+
 	if (rdev->constraints->over_current_detection)
 		ret = handle_notify_limits(rdev,
 					   ops->set_over_current_protection,

-- 
2.34.1
Re: [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during initialization
Posted by Matti Vaittinen 2 years, 5 months ago
On 6/20/23 23:03, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> From: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>
> 
> It can happen that monitors are activated before the kernel is started,
> e.g. by bootloader or by OTP. If monitoring workarounds are active on a
> regulator, the core shouldn't perform the state changes without applying
> the workaround to the regulator. Therefore, warn the user already during
> initialization that the device-tree should be adapted.
> 
> Warning can be fixed by enabling (or disabling) monitoring in the DT,
> e.g.:
> regulator-uv-protection-microvolt = <1>;
> or
> regulator-ov-error-microvolt = <0>;
> 
> Constraints regarding the monitoring of a regulator can usually be found
> in the docu.

I am not entirely sure if this is the right thing to do. Should we 
expect the hardware state to be what is described in DT at Linux boot-up 
- or, should we silently accept the fact that for example boot can alter 
things.

 From the 'code pov' I have no complaints though. I just can't say if 
warning is the right idea. I'll leave this for bigger brains to decide :)


-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Re: [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during initialization
Posted by Mark Brown 2 years, 5 months ago
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:56:21PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 6/20/23 23:03, Benjamin Bara wrote:

> > Warning can be fixed by enabling (or disabling) monitoring in the DT,
> > e.g.:
> > regulator-uv-protection-microvolt = <1>;
> > or
> > regulator-ov-error-microvolt = <0>;
> > 
> > Constraints regarding the monitoring of a regulator can usually be found
> > in the docu.

> I am not entirely sure if this is the right thing to do. Should we expect
> the hardware state to be what is described in DT at Linux boot-up - or,
> should we silently accept the fact that for example boot can alter things.

> From the 'code pov' I have no complaints though. I just can't say if warning
> is the right idea. I'll leave this for bigger brains to decide :)

Yes, this isn't really the idiom we normally adopt - the default thing
is to just leave the hardware untouched, that should not usually be
regarded as a problem.
Re: [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during initialization
Posted by Benjamin Bara 2 years, 5 months ago
Hi Matti & Mark,

thank you for the feedback!

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 18:49, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:56:21PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On 6/20/23 23:03, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> > > Warning can be fixed by enabling (or disabling) monitoring in the DT,
> > > e.g.:
> > > regulator-uv-protection-microvolt = <1>;
> > > or
> > > regulator-ov-error-microvolt = <0>;
> > >
> > > Constraints regarding the monitoring of a regulator can usually be found
> > > in the docu.
>
> > I am not entirely sure if this is the right thing to do. Should we expect
> > the hardware state to be what is described in DT at Linux boot-up - or,
> > should we silently accept the fact that for example boot can alter things.
>
> > From the 'code pov' I have no complaints though. I just can't say if warning
> > is the right idea. I'll leave this for bigger brains to decide :)
>
> Yes, this isn't really the idiom we normally adopt - the default thing
> is to just leave the hardware untouched, that should not usually be
> regarded as a problem.

Thanks for clarifying. I will now activate the constraint instead of erroring
out. This guarantees that the workaround will still be applied, so basically
similar to the current bd718x7 implementation. I would still keep the message as
a warn, or should I drop it too? My idea is to let the user know that there is
some kind of monitoring going on but the device-tree is not aware of it.
Re: [PATCH RFC v4 07/13] regulator: find active protections during initialization
Posted by Mark Brown 2 years, 5 months ago
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 08:43:47PM +0200, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 18:49, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Yes, this isn't really the idiom we normally adopt - the default thing
> > is to just leave the hardware untouched, that should not usually be
> > regarded as a problem.

> Thanks for clarifying. I will now activate the constraint instead of erroring
> out. This guarantees that the workaround will still be applied, so basically
> similar to the current bd718x7 implementation. I would still keep the message as
> a warn, or should I drop it too? My idea is to let the user know that there is
> some kind of monitoring going on but the device-tree is not aware of it.

I would leave the warning off, I'd say it's more unusual that it might
be possible to disable the montioring than that it's being enabled - a
lot of devices either have fixed limits or only allow the limit to be
configured without allowing it to be completely disabled.