Re: [PATCH v5 09/18] arm64: dts: qcom: qrb5165-rb5: model the PMU of the QCA6391

Mark Brown
2024-02-20T14:10:20Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1174 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:51:25PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:48 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > It is generally a bad sign if there is a voltage range specified on a
> > regulator that's not got any indication that the voltage is going to be
> > actively managed, especially in situations like with several of the
> > supplies the DT was specifying where there are clear indications that
> > the supply is intended to be fixed voltage (or cases where every single
> > supply has a voltage range which would be highly unusual). Looking at
> > the consumers might provide an explanation for such unusual and likely
> > incorrect constraints, and the lack of any consumers in conjunction with
> > other warning signs reenforces those warning signs.

> What do you recommend? No values at all in these regulators as it's
> the PMU which will manage those on its own once powered up by the host
> PMIC?

Unless something is actively going to change the voltages at runtime
or Linux needs to set a specific voltage (in which case minimum and
maximum should be identical) there should be nothing specified.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]