From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753674AbaHMRBi (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:01:38 -0400 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([93.93.135.160]:39013 "EHLO bhuna.collabora.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752829AbaHMRBg (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:01:36 -0400 Message-ID: <53EB99EB.5020404@collabora.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:01:31 +0200 From: Javier Martinez Canillas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Warren , Kukjin Kim CC: Doug Anderson , Olof Johansson , Yuvaraj Kumar C D , Mark Brown , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: dts: Add tps65090 FETs constraints References: <1407861868-20097-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <1407861868-20097-7-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> <53EB8F50.7090505@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: <53EB8F50.7090505@wwwdotorg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Stephen, On 08/13/2014 06:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > I'm worried that this file represents the limits of the PMIC itself, > whereas the DT should be representing the limits of the circuits that > the various PMIC regulators are attached to on the board. > > For example: > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tps65090.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tps65090.dtsi > >> tps65090_fet3: fet3 { >> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3000000>; >> + regulator-max-microvolt = <5500000>; >> }; > > I guess that on some boards, this output rail might be attached to > devices that must run at 3.3V exactly, and on other boards it might be > attached to devices that must run at 5V exactly. The DT for those two > boards should each have regulator-{min,max}-microvolt set to the same > value, which describes the board requirements. > > It feels dangerous/misleading to define the PMIC range by default. It > might lead people to think that since the property already has a defined > value, they don't need to think about what the correct value for their > board is, and hence not change the value in their board file. > Yes, Mark already explained to me why this approach was broken so I've dropped the whole series. Thanks a lot for your feedback. Best regards, Javier