Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tda38640: Add interrupt & regulator properties

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3017 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:48:52AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/14/24 09:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:55:03PM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> > > Add properties for interrupt & regulator.
> > > Also update example.
> > 
> > I feel like a broken record. Your patches need to explain _why_ you're
> > doing what you're doing. I can read the diff and see this, but I do not
> > know what the justification for it is.
> > 
> > /30 seconds later
> > I really am a broken record, to quote from v1:
> > | Feeling like a broken record, given I am leaving the same comments on
> > | multiple patches. The commit message needs to explain why you're doing
> > | something. I can read the diff and see what you did!
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240126-fleshed-subdued-36bae813e2ba@spud/
> > 
> > The patch itself does look better than the v1, with one minor comment
> > below.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Conor.
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > 1. Remove TEST=..
> > > 2. Update regulator subnode property as vout0
> > > 3. Restore commented line in example
> > > 4. blank line after interrupts property in example.
> > > ---
> > >   .../hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml        | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml
> > > index ded1c115764b..a93b3f86ee87 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml
> > > @@ -30,6 +30,23 @@ properties:
> > >         unconnected(has internal pull-down).
> > >       type: boolean
> > > +  interrupts:
> > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > +
> > > +  regulators:
> > > +    type: object
> > > +    description:
> > > +      list of regulators provided by this controller.
> > > +
> > > +    properties:
> > > +      vout0:
> > 
> > Why "vout0" if there's only one output? Is it called that in the
> > documentation? I had a quick check but only saw it called "vout".
> > Are there other related devices that would have multiple regulators
> > that might end up sharing the binding?
> > 
> 
> Primarily because that is what the PMBus core generates for the driver
> because no one including me was aware that this is unacceptable
> for single-output drivers.

Is it unacceptable? If you're implying that I am saying it is, that's
not what I was doing here - I'm just wondering why it was chosen.
Numbering when there's only one seems odd, so I was just looking for the
rationale.

> We now have commit 88b5970e92d0 ("hwmon:
> (pmbus/core) Add helper macro to define single pmbus regulator").
> I guess we can update the tda38640 driver to use the new macro
> to register vout instead of vout0.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]