From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] mfd/regulator/clk: bd71837: ROHM BD71837 PMIC driver Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 08:39:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20180529073958.GB4790@dell> References: <20180528090003.GA8778@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180528090003.GA8778@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matti Vaittinen Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, mazziesaccount@gmail.com, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mikko.mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com, heikki.haikola@fi.rohmeurope.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 28 May 2018, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > Patch series adding support for ROHM BD71837 PMIC. > > BD71837 is a programmable Power Management IC for powering single-core, > dual-core, and quad-core SoC’s such as NXP-i.MX 8M. It is optimized for > low BOM cost and compact solution footprint. It integrates 8 buck > regulators and 7 LDO’s to provide all the power rails required by the > SoC and the commonly used peripherals. > > The driver aims to not limit the usage of PMIC. Thus the buck and LDO > naming is generic and not tied to any specific purposes. However there > is following limitations which make it mostly suitable for use cases > where the processor where PMIC driver is running is powered by the PMIC: > > - The PMIC is not re-initialized if it resets. PMIC may reset as a > result of voltage monitoring (over/under voltage) or due to reset > request. Driver is only initializing PMIC at probe. This is not > problem as long as processor controlling PMIC is powered by PMIC. > > - The PMIC internal state machine is ignored by driver. Driver assumes > the PMIC is wired so that it is always in "run" state when controlled > by the driver. FYI, this patch-set is going to be difficult to manage since it was not sent 'threaded'. As people start replying to different patches, they are going to scatter-bomb throughout all of the recipient's inboxes. If/when you send a subsequent version, could you please ensure you send the set threaded so the patches keep in relation to one another as they are reviewed? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog