Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] arm64: dts: add description for solidrun cn9131 solidwan board

From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Yazan Shhady <yazan.shhady@solid-run.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] arm64: dts: add description for solidrun cn9131 solidwan board
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 08:24:38 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240503132438.GA460984-robh@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d72c7637-e59f-4104-93e9-6faab2da0836@solid-run.com>

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 05:35:44PM +0000, Josua Mayer wrote:
> Am 02.05.24 um 14:32 schrieb Josua Mayer:
> > Add description for the SolidRun CN9131 SolidWAN, based on CN9130 SoM
> > with an extra communication  processor on the carrier board.
> >
> > This board differentiates itself from CN9130 Clearfog by providing
> > additional SoC native network interfaces and pci buses:
> > 2x 10Gbps SFP+
> > 4x 1Gbps RJ45
> > 1x miniPCI-E
> > 1x m.2 b-key with sata, usb-2.0 and usb-3.0
> > 1x m.2 m-key with pcie and usb-2.0
> > 1x m.2 b-key with pcie, usb-2.0, usb-3.0 and 2x sim slots
> > 1x mpcie with pcie only
> > 2x type-a usb-2.0/3.0
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/Makefile               |   1 +
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9131-cf-solidwan.dts | 643 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 644 insertions(+)
> >
> cut
> > +	/* Type-A port on J53 */
> > +	reg_usb_a_vbus0: regulator-usb-a-vbus0 {
> > +		compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > +		pinctrl-0 = <&cp0_reg_usb_a_vbus0_pins>;
> > +		pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +		regulator-name = "vbus0";
> > +		regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>;
> > +		regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>;
> > +		regulator-oc-protection-microamp = <1000000>;
> 
> Is it correct to specify over-current protection for a 
> regulator-fixed? It causes kernel messages:
> 
> [ 7.988337] vbus0: IC does not support requested over-current limits 
> [ 7.994756] vbus0: IC does not support requested over voltage limits 
> [ 7.998796] vbus1: IC does not support requested over-current limits
> ...

Seems like you have your answer...

>
> The reason I put the property was that the 1A limit is a property of 
> the regulator component (NCP380-1.0A). Maybe that is the wrong property?
> 
> It also generates an interrupt for which I found no suitable description.

Then you should describe the actual device because it is not just a 
regulator-fixed. I suppose we could consider adding an interrupt to 
regulator-fixed, but then its function can only be for (presumably) 
over-current. Even details on how to handle it could vary as well.

Rob

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