From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C08CC48260 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:48:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Content-Type: List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:CC:To:From:Date: Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date :Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=7XzfOE1mjQEs9rau2jGxh6cYeqSHMMC2+FqakK/RhKY=; b=sa3/BUPQAMXoCVRc6TYBpgRvHe EEOWc0RHkPyQe0/O+QQEhINdmWY6Bp3ZgGRMq/b3c+3af6jodTOQ1A1tVZ5p34Z3/ZEl4CxQlvQG8 l8bqjcQJvrDRgfe4eEjrImCcdKF2pXVQTL4wMF6XmNXGrGVlZLpxjL6iBQbdxIVK3c7ejBMIw8o4H ZilqALHXVKFbe52G92nH4zFcaKnYn+lFkbxUBbgmJfcsswFM3ls1fbfPqZmTJBlGWs03H2/1mFhDh 83xB4w29EJxOABIi3zPJCfEaxcyro7j0uxzqZmUU9BageouY6c+b52TGYZcCYa9f9bKnvnBKP3Sul g0tmCTSA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rawhR-00000002ClY-3vjk; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:48:13 +0000 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com ([68.232.153.233]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rawhP-00000002CkT-1XCm for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:48:12 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1708084091; x=1739620091; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=RiaiDgSABZOcY6xfBFk/iAiLxZ+7gb0T/+DUHtFP25g=; b=Q704HbbNszWDPU78xd6dNnGoDS88xQYJW/VdlhwUt/iDOuhYTg3HWKXN oJUs17oI9v0MxJ7go0ye6krzcrJiD8W46a+mLb/4w9jqYiMU6nssJrw7c z7J41yvSmPf3zoI+VoOnznUahBvG/ULIKAJ6IvCQF9Cm35Jr0gd+sn91r 5QNk2YA6cr3ztVFozQK5ONpRs/+u+0oo05tTPyqSzUB4+MN14zngD50sU gkEcXxB8cL6nyHbpsVFWU1+rnOF3VnL5N7k2Q5G/i910G57j9C0HvR8Dz jnJzkmlwW3i8wxzxIJg95KRVzVASqzyOhXlpRRyp8VBx4Zua3ZATkCm2K w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: VVL1m307SNuw0/i+Vt/wLA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: BLowQz8ZQJmWsAp3y5gI3w== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,164,1705388400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="17827216" X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN Received: from unknown (HELO email.microchip.com) ([170.129.1.10]) by esa1.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 16 Feb 2024 04:48:07 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) by chn-vm-ex01.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 04:47:47 -0700 Received: from wendy (10.10.85.11) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 04:47:44 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:47:03 +0000 From: Conor Dooley To: Julien Panis CC: Conor Dooley , Kevin Hilman , Bhargav Raviprakash , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 03/13] dt-bindings: mfd: ti,tps6594: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC Message-ID: <20240216-chimp-endowment-e4c241e8e466@wendy> References: <20240209-blitz-fidgety-78469aa80d6d@spud> <20240214093106.86483-1-bhargav.r@ltts.com> <20240214-galley-dweller-1e9872229d80@spud> <7hil2r5556.fsf@baylibre.com> <20240214-depraved-unfunded-3f0b3d6bf3e2@spud> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240216_034811_642345_717E1D58 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 34.11 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6671572216864164371==" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org --===============6671572216864164371== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zk2oXzKpSp9IbgEb" Content-Disposition: inline --zk2oXzKpSp9IbgEb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:08:03AM +0100, Julien Panis wrote: > On 2/14/24 18:45, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:26:13AM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > > Conor Dooley writes: > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 03:01:06PM +0530, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote: > > > > > On Fri 2/9/2024 10:41 PM, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 04:23:33PM +0530, Bhargav Raviprakash w= rote: > > > > > > > TPS65224 is a Power Management IC with 4 Buck regulators and = 3 LDO > > > > > > > regulators, it includes additional features like GPIOs, watch= dog, ESMs > > > > > > > (Error Signal Monitor), and PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite Sta= te Machine) > > > > > > > managing the state of the device. > > > > > > > TPS6594 and TPS65224 have significant functional overlap. > > > > > > What does "significant functional overlap" mean? Does one imple= ment a > > > > > > compatible subset of the other? I assume the answer is no, give= n there > > > > > > seems to be some core looking registers at different addresses. > > > > > The intention behind =E2=80=9Csignificant functional overlap=E2= =80=9D was meant to > > > > > indicate a lot of the features between TPS6594 and TPS65224 overl= ap, > > > > > 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. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Would it be more appropriate to say the 2 devices are compatible = and have > > > > > sufficient feature overlap rather than significant functional ove= rlap? > > > > If core registers are at different addresses, then it is unlikely t= hat > > > > these devices are compatible. > > > That's not necessarily true. Hardware designers can sometimes be > > > creative. :) > > Hence "unlikely" in my mail :) >=20 > For tps6594 and tps65224, some core registers are at different adresses > indeed, but the code is the same for both MFD I2C/SPI entry points. As an > example, the way CRC is enabled is exactly the same, even if the bit that > must be set belongs to different registers. tps65224 has more resources a= nd > it's as if HW designers had had to re-organize the way bits are distribut= ed > among the registers (due to a lack of space, so to speak). >=20 > That said, if we consider that these devices are not compatible, what doe= s it > imply concretely for the next version ? Does that mean that: > 1) Only a new binding must be created, even if MFD drivers and most of ch= ild > drivers will be re-used ? (then the binding would simply be duplicated, b= ut > the drivers would not) > 2) A new binding and new MFD drivers must be created, even if most of chi= ld > drivers will be re-used ? (then the binding and MFD drivers would simply = be > duplicated, but the child drivers would not) > 3) A new binding and new drivers (MFD and child devices) must be created ? > 4) Anything else ? If they're not compatible the next version of this patch does not need to change, so option 4 I guess. --zk2oXzKpSp9IbgEb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZc9LNwAKCRB4tDGHoIJi 0pedAPwIn8EzGb7CK85veeqxTab48XHAJBFZX5GiGXdXq9JL9AD/Uz/cmlDaU22C 5UOMmufi3WxQg2fkU46lxarbGj0MvgQ= =vBKa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zk2oXzKpSp9IbgEb-- --===============6671572216864164371== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel --===============6671572216864164371==--