Re: kern/60671

["Yuri Honegger via gnats" <gnats-admin%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR kern/60671; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Yuri Honegger <yuri.honegger%icloud.com@localhost>
To: "gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost" <gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: kern/60671
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 21:36:04 +0200

 About your patch: It looks correct, but it doesn=E2=80=99t modify the =
 aprint calls. If we only communicate the range to the regulator, we =
 should also update the printfs to report a range instead of a specific =
 value to avoid confusion. And at that point, voltage_uv is basically =
 unused and can be removed.
 
 However, I think a better approach would be to change the fdt_regulator =
 framework so that it accepts preferred_uv, min_uv and max_uv instead of =
 only min_uv and max_uv.=20
 Looking through some regulator implementations, most always use min_uv =
 or the average as a substitute for a preferred_uv.
 For example, tps65217 uses uv_min and does some rounding that can lead =
 to values outside uv_min. Having a preferred_uv doesn=E2=80=99t solve =
 the rounding issue, but it can add some margin.
 In terms of scope, it looks doable (around 15 callsites and =
 implementations).
 I also thinks it is slightly less risky because it doesn=E2=80=99t =
 change the value that reaches the regulator, so all regulators should =
 continue to behave exactly as they do right now on boards unaffected by =
 your issue.