Re: [PATCH 3/7] regulator: qcom-rpmh: Correct the pmic5_hfsmps515 buck

Mark Brown
2021-03-11T18:36:33Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 09:45:41AM +0530, skakit@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2021-03-02 19:51, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

> > I'd still prefer to have two different regulator types (as we did for
> > pm8009 P=0 and P=1 variants). However it's probably up to the
> > maintainers to decide.

> As Mark already picked this, I think we can leave it this way.

As far as I can tell this is a system configuration issue, the board
constraints will ensure that we don't try to set a voltage that the
system can't support so there should be no need for this to be handled
as separate variants. That assumes that this P register field just
extends the values available, it doesn't have to be tied to some board
setup or anything. If it is a board configuration thing it probably
makes more sense to add a boolean property for it, ideally something
tied to whatever the board configuration is so that it's easier for
people to discover.

I had understood the pm8009 case as being two different parts with the
same name rather than two different options for the same part.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]