[PATCH] regulator: rk8xx: Fix buck get and set enabled state on RK806
Quentin Schulz
quentin.schulz at cherry.de
Mon Sep 2 16:41:13 CEST 2024
Hi Jonas,
On 9/2/24 4:28 PM, Jonas Karlman wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On 2024-09-02 13:14, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> Hi Jonas,
>>
>> On 8/31/24 12:42 AM, Jonas Karlman wrote:
>>> Wrong POWER_EN reg is used to get and set enabled state for the RK806
>>> buck 4 and 8 regulators, also wrong POWER_SLP_EN0 bit is used for
>>> suspend state for the RK806 buck 1-8 regulators.
>>>
>>> Fix this by not adding one to the zero based buck variable.
>>>
>>> Fixes: f172575d92cd ("power: rk8xx: add support for RK806")
>>
>> Shoot, I made a lot of mistakes in that driver :/
>>
>> Thanks for catching those :)
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <jonas at kwiboo.se>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c | 12 ++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c b/drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c
>>> index 34e61511d884..3f5ec02b3824 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c
>>> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int _buck_set_enable(struct udevice *pmic, int buck, bool enable)
>>> break;
>>> case RK806_ID:
>>> value = RK806_POWER_EN_CLRSETBITS(buck % 4, enable);
>>> - en_reg = RK806_POWER_EN((buck + 1) / 4);
>>> + en_reg = RK806_POWER_EN(buck / 4);
>>> ret = pmic_reg_write(pmic, en_reg, value);
>>> break;
>>> case RK808_ID:
>>> @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static int _buck_get_enable(struct udevice *pmic, int buck)
>>> break;
>>> case RK806_ID:
>>> mask = BIT(buck % 4);
>>> - ret = pmic_reg_read(pmic, RK806_POWER_EN((buck + 1) / 4));
>>> + ret = pmic_reg_read(pmic, RK806_POWER_EN(buck / 4));
>>> break;
>>> case RK808_ID:
>>> case RK818_ID:
>>> @@ -541,10 +541,10 @@ static int _buck_set_suspend_enable(struct udevice *pmic, int buck, bool enable)
>>>
>>> if (buck + 1 >= 9) {
>>> reg = RK806_POWER_SLP_EN1;
>>> - mask = BIT(buck + 1 - 3);
>>> + mask = BIT(buck - 2);
>>
>> I like my (+ 1 - 3) here to match buck + 1 above. buck + 1 represents
>> the buck number in the datasheet (index starts at one), so you need to
>> subtract 3 to that index to find the bit index in the register.
>
> I understand this reasoning and would fully agree if this was the only
> use of buck in BIT(), however each time I tried to scan over this code,
> (with buck is 0-based in mind) this buck + 1 - 3 made me stop and
> re-think if this really was correct.
>
Fair enough. Should we migrate buck + 1 >= 9 to buck >= 8 with an
additional comment explaining this is for BUCK9/BUCK10?
> I have no strong opinion and can revert this change if you like.
>
>>
>>> } else {
>>> reg = RK806_POWER_SLP_EN0;
>>> - mask = BIT(buck + 1);
>>> + mask = BIT(buck);
>>> }
>>> ret = pmic_clrsetbits(pmic, reg, mask, enable ? mask : 0);
>>> }
>>> @@ -592,10 +592,10 @@ static int _buck_get_suspend_enable(struct udevice *pmic, int buck)
>>>
>>> if (buck + 1 >= 9) {
>>> reg = RK806_POWER_SLP_EN1;
>>> - mask = BIT(buck + 1 - 3);
>>> + mask = BIT(buck - 2);
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> Just a matter of taste though!
>
> Let me know if you want me to send a v2 with this change reverted.
>
It just creeps in along changes that are actually bugs and I had to do a
double take on the diff to make sure it was correct.
I could suggest two separate commits:
1) bug fixes from buck + 1 to buck (basically everything but the buck -
2 changes)
2) change buck + 1 that I added for "readability" to buck by subtracting
one elsewhere and maybe adding a comment for better readability?
What do you think?
Cheers,
Quentin
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list