Re: [PATCH 0/5] regulator: Enhance AXP209 DT support

Mark Brown
2014-06-03T13:57:16Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1881 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:09:38PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 07:47:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 07:11:04PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:

> > > This patchset modifies the regulator core and axp209 regulator driver
> > > to be able to set in each regulators sub-node the supply, that should
> > > be possible, given that it's documented as such in the bindings, but

> > It is? We should fix that.

> From Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt:

> - <name>-supply: phandle to the parent supply/regulator node

> With the example:
>
> xyzreg: regulator@0 {
> regulator-min-microvolt = <1000000>;
> regulator-max-microvolt = <2500000>;
> regulator-always-on;
> vin-supply = <&vin>;
> };

> If not right, then it's strongly misleading.

That's misleading, the supplies are for the bit of silicon not some
subfunction on it.

> > No, we've been round this loop several times before. This reduces
> > consistency in how we map supplies since the user has to work out which
> > subnode the supply is associated with and what it's called there instead
> > of being able to just look at the schematic and translate the supply
> > name into a property name. It also means you have to map supplies into
> > multiple child nodes if the same supply is used in multiple places.

> Which might be what your schematics actually show. If you have a
> single input pin for each regulator, even if the name changes from one
> pin to another, you're still pretty much in this kind of construct.

That's very common, but I do expect that the supplies are all uniquely
named on the silicon so not a big deal and bear in mind that this is
not just about consistency between PMICs but also about consistency
between PMICs and other devices.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]