Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: update TI TPS23861 bindings with per-port schema

[Gregory Fuchedgi <gfuchedgi@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 09:23:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/08/2025 05:00, Gregory Fuchedgi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>> +  shutdown-gpios:
> >> powerdown-gpios, see gpio-consumer-common.yaml
> > It is called shutdown in the datasheet, but seems like neither powerdown nor
> > shutdown truly reflects its purpose. This pin doesn't power down the controller
> > itself. It shuts down the ports while keeping the controller available for
> > configuration over i2c. Should I call it ti,ports-shutdown-gpios or maybe
> > ti,shutdown-gpios? Any other suggestions?
> Feels more like enable-gpios.
Wouldn't that be confusing, since there's no enable pin in the datasheet? Also
it doesn't enable/disable the controller itself, but its ports.
In my mind ti,ports-shutdown-gpios is the most meaningful name for it. That said
I appreciate the guidance, since I do not know what's the usual way to do this?
Happy to go with enable-gpios if that's the convention.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 10:31 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>> +patternProperties:
> > >>> +  "^port@[0-3]$":
> > >> This goes to ports property.
> > > Do you mean I should add another DT node that groups all ports? such as:
> > > compatible = "ti,tps23861"; ports { port@0 {...} port@1 {...} }
> > Yes.
> Except this is not an OF graph. Don't re-use it when it is not that.
> Maybe 'poe-port@'? Is multiple ports/channels something common on PoE
> chips? I'd guess so. If so, then come up with something common.
poe-port@ sounds good to me. When you say come up with something common, does
that imply adding it to a new file, like bindings/hwmon/poe-common.yaml? Or just
using poe-port in this dt without the parent ports node?

> Whether you should have a container node like 'ports' is a separate
> question. You get exactly 1 address space for any given node. So if you
> ever might need to address multiple disjoint things, then you probably
> want a container node.
I do not want to address anything else in this case, so I'd keep it simple.
But let me know if I'm missing any important details.
Appreciate the guidance.