Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 03/13] dt-bindings: mfd: ti,tps6594: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC

From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@ltts.com>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, broonie@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	jpanis@baylibre.com, kristo@kernel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, lee@kernel.org,
	lgirdwood@gmail.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, m.nirmaladevi@ltts.com, nm@ti.com,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, vigneshr@ti.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 03/13] dt-bindings: mfd: ti,tps6594: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:38:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240214-galley-dweller-1e9872229d80@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240214093106.86483-1-bhargav.r@ltts.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1645 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 03:01:06PM +0530, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> On Fri 2/9/2024 10:41 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 04:23:33PM +0530, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote:
> > > TPS65224 is a Power Management IC with 4 Buck regulators and 3 LDO
> > > regulators, it includes additional features like GPIOs, watchdog, ESMs
> > > (Error Signal Monitor), and PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine)
> > > managing the state of the device.
> > 
> > > TPS6594 and TPS65224 have significant functional overlap.
> > 
> > What does "significant functional overlap" mean? Does one implement a
> > compatible subset of the other? I assume the answer is no, given there
> > seems to be some core looking registers at different addresses.
> 
> The intention behind “significant functional overlap” was meant to
> indicate a lot of the features between TPS6594 and TPS65224 overlap,
> while there are some features specific to TPS65224.
> There is compatibility between the PMIC register maps, I2C, PFSM,
> and other drivers even though there are some core registers at
> different addresses.
> 
> Would it be more appropriate to say the 2 devices are compatible and have
> sufficient feature overlap rather than significant functional overlap?

If core registers are at different addresses, then it is unlikely that
these devices are compatible. In this context, compatible means that
existing software intended for the 6594 would run without modification
on the 65224, although maybe only supporting a subset of features.
If that's not the case, then the devices are not compatible.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel