From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Collins Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] regulator: add QCOM RPMh regulator driver Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:11:54 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20180530163343.GV6920@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180530163343.GV6920@sirena.org.uk> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: lgirdwood@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org, sboyd@kernel.org, dianders@chromium.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello Mark, On 05/30/2018 09:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 07:43:16PM -0700, David Collins wrote: >> This patch series adds a driver and device tree binding documentation for >> PMIC regulator control via Resource Power Manager-hardened (RPMh) on some >> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. SoCs such as SDM845. RPMh is a hardware block > > So, this is a very big driver and obviously it being RPM based it > doesn't look like other regulators which is causing problems, especially > when coupled with the desire to implement a bunch of more exotic > features like the mode setting. I think this review is going to go a > lot more smoothly if you split this up into a base driver with just > normal, standard stuff that doesn't add too many custom properties or > unusual ways of working and then a series of patches on top of that > adding things like the mode adjustment and interaction with other RPM > clients. > > We've got other RPM based regulators in tree already so the baseline bit > shouldn't be too hard, that'll make the rest of the patches much smaller > and easier to review and mean that the bits that are simpler and easier > to cope with don't need to be reposted. I'll split up the patches so that reviewing is easier. For the base patch, would you prefer that I remove *all* mode support (handled by generic regulator framework DT properties) or only remove the special purpose drms mode handling support (i.e. qcom,regulator-drms-modes and qcom,drms-mode-max-microamps)? Thanks, David -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project