Re: [PATCH v14 2/4] dt-bindings: i2c: Add Maxim MAX735x/MAX736x variants

Peter Rosin
2023-05-02T10:37:41Z

Hi!

2023-05-02 at 10:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/05/2023 08:52, Patrick Rudolph wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> it could indeed cause problems when VDD1 != VDD2 and at both needs to
>> be enabled.
>> The pca9846 datasheet seems to refer to VDD1 as VDD. Thus I could add
>> an optional "vdd2" regulator to the binding and driver.
>>
>> Please let me know if that's what you had in mind.
>
> Don't top post.
>
> In such case vdd-supply should not be used for VDD2.

When reading the data sheet [1], I get the feeling that the instances
of VDD are either copy-paste errors from data sheets from chip with a
single VDD, or a reference to either of VDD1 or VDD2. It is thus not
super clear to me that VDD should be the same thing as VDD1.

Sure, there is section 6.5 "Power-on reset", which mentions VDD and
VDD2 (but not VDD1), but that seems like a simply typo and that it
should really have been VDD1 instead of an unqualified VDD.

There are also various timings "glitch supply voltage difference"
(delta VDD(gl)) and "supply voltage glitch pulse width" (t w(gl)VDD)
with notes that refer to VDD2, which *could* indicate that the
glitch in VDD is about a glitch VDD1. But it could also mean glitches
on any of VDD1 and VDD2?

The general description of the chip indicates that VDD1 is there
mainly to allow different bus voltages on each of the channels.
Which is not at all the function of VDD on the other chips. Meanwhile
VDD2 "is the core logic supply from which most of the PCA9846
circuitry runs", and seems like it is a better match for plain VDD?

Maybe one can find out more by reading the spec more carefully, but
as I said, it is not clear to me that either of VDD1 or VDD2 can be
matched to VDD.

Perhaps it is best to not mix things at all?

[1] https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/PCA9846.pdf