From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: carlo@caione.org, Boris Brezillon <boris@free-electrons.com>,
lgirdwood@gmail.com, lee.jones@linaro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kevin.z.m.zh@gmail.com,
sunny@allwinnertech.com, shuge@allwinnertech.com,
zhuzhenhua@allwinnertech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] regulator: axp20x: Update the bindings to use a local parent regulator
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 18:05:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140606160552.GC9791@lukather> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140605154931.GY2520@sirena.org.uk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2171 bytes --]
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:49:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:27:29PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> > You already list the regulators available and their supply in the
> > regulator driver, why do you need to set the regulator parents in the
> > mfd driver as well?
>
> Unless they're being used by the MFD directly there should be no need
> for the MFD to know anything about the supplies.
Ok.
> > My guess is that it's to work around the fact that
> > regulator_dev_lookup only looks for the regulator's device of_node (so
> > not the PMIC one, but one of its child), which doesn't have the supply
> > properties, and then just falls back on the regulator alias
> > list. Would it make some sense to add a lookup in the parent device
> > of_node (which would be the "main" PMIC node in our case)?
>
> This sounds like you are passing the MFD child device into the regulator
> API when you should be passing the parent device in.
We're passing the device coming from the platform_device that is
passed in probe, that has been created by mfd_add_device, which is
indeed the child device from the MFD device. So we should always use
the platform device parent's instead?
> > Also, there's also the fact that all the supply properties seems to
> > also be mandatory in the DT, even though the regulator itself might
> > not be used at all on the board, and the input voltage not wired to
> > anything.
>
> For electrical engineering reasons it's unlikely that the supplies are
> actually floating but yes, they are mandatory. This is an issue with
> registering one device for the entire regulator subsystem on the PMIC,
> it interacts somewhat poorly with deferred probe. However for systems
> with full constraints like DT and ACPI ones it should be mostly
> sidestepped since the if there is no supply mapped a dummy supply will
> be substituted.
Yes, they are actually tied to the ground, but it's still something
meaningless, that I guess shouldn't be expressed in the DT?
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-06 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-28 17:11 [PATCH 0/5] regulator: Enhance AXP209 DT support Maxime Ripard
2014-05-28 17:11 ` [PATCH 1/5] regulator: Allow to pass the device node to regulator_dev_lookup Maxime Ripard
2014-05-28 17:11 ` [PATCH 2/5] regulator: Pass the config " Maxime Ripard
2014-05-28 17:11 ` [PATCH 3/5] regulator: axp20x: Update the bindings to use a local parent regulator Maxime Ripard
2014-05-28 18:50 ` Mark Brown
2014-06-03 13:12 ` Maxime Ripard
2014-06-03 14:43 ` Mark Brown
2014-06-05 14:27 ` Maxime Ripard
2014-06-05 15:49 ` Mark Brown
2014-06-06 16:05 ` Maxime Ripard [this message]
2014-08-16 13:58 ` Mark Brown
2014-05-28 17:11 ` [PATCH 4/5] mfd: axp209x: Drop the parent supplies field Maxime Ripard
2014-05-29 7:37 ` Lee Jones
2014-05-28 17:11 ` [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sun7i: cubieboard2: Enable the AXP209 Maxime Ripard
2014-05-28 18:47 ` [PATCH 0/5] regulator: Enhance AXP209 DT support Mark Brown
2014-06-03 13:09 ` Maxime Ripard
2014-06-03 13:56 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140606160552.GC9791@lukather \
--to=maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com \
--cc=boris@free-electrons.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=carlo@caione.org \
--cc=kevin.z.m.zh@gmail.com \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shuge@allwinnertech.com \
--cc=sunny@allwinnertech.com \
--cc=zhuzhenhua@allwinnertech.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox