Re: [RFC PATCH 6/7] dt-bindings: motion: Add adi,tmc5240 bindings

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 28/02/2025 10:51, David Jander wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Second sentence is both redundant and really not relevant to this
>>>> binding. It's not this binding which decides about sharing.  
>>>
>>> Good point. I think I should drop the whole property, since it is indeed
>>> irrelevant. If extra supplies need to be specified, they always can be, right?  
>>
>> You should specify all supplies now, because hardware should be fully
>> described by binding and DTS.
> 
> In the case of the hardware I use for testing all of this, there are several
> tmc5240 chips which have their "SLEEPN" pin tied together controlled by a
> single GPIO pin that needs to be pulled high before any of these chips can be
> talked to. The usual way I know of solving this is by specifying a common
> "virtual" supply of type "regulator-fixed" with an enable gpio.

No, that is not usual way. Representing pin as fake supply is hack and
not correct hardware description.

> But this isn't strictly a supply that has to do with this chip or driver, so I
> don't think it should be specified in the schema. I do need to use it in my
> particular case though. Is there a better way of doing this?

I speak about voltage and current supplies. These you must specify.

> 
>> What's more, the necessary supplies (according to datasheet) should be
>> required, not optional.
> 
> Do you mean that they should be in the binding definition as well? I.e. add
> all of Vs, Vdd1v8 and Vcc_io here?

Yes, all expected supplies must be in the binding.


Best regards,
Krzysztof