Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mfd: rohm-bd71828: Add power off functionality

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

Morning Andreas,

On 3/28/24 00:02, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> Hi Matti,
> 
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:11:36 +0200
> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/27/24 15:04, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:32:29 +0200
>>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> It's worth noting that there is another PMIC, BD71879, which, from the
>>>> driver software point of view, should be (almost?) identical to the
>>>> BD71828. I believe the BD71828 drivers should work with it as well - if
>>>> not out of the box, at least with very minor modifications.
>>>> Unfortunately I don't know products where the BD71879 is used or if it
>>>> is sold via distributors - so I don't know if adding a DT
>>>> compatible/chip type define for it would be beneficial.
>>>
>>> yes, you already told we thet the BD71828 drivers are compatible with
>>> the BD71879 and I am using the latter.
>>> But that at least should be commented somewhere, so that
>>> people do not raise questions, like: Do I have some strange board revision,
>>> etc?
>>> The most terse form to comment it is a separate dt compatible so we are
>>> prepare any "almost identical" surprises.
>>
>> I agree. Reason why I haven't done this already is that I don't always
>> (like in this case) know which of the variant are eventually sold. So,
>> it's balancing dance between adding compatibles for ICs that will never
>> been seen by large audience, and missing compatibles for some of the
>> variants.
>>
>> This is also why I was interested in knowing which variant you had, and
>> where was it used.
>>
> I have found it in the Kobo Clara 2E ebook reader.
> Kobo seems to switch from RC5T619 to BD71879.
> The Kobo Nia rev C also has that one.
> Kobo Libra 2 has several hardware revs out in the wild, some of them
> with the BD71879.

Thanks for the info :) It's a shame we so rarely know where things we 
work for are used. I always find news like this interesting.

>> But yes, I think that as the BD71879 has obviously been found by a
>> community linux kernel user - it would make sense to add a compatible
>> for it!
>>
>> Do you feel like adding the compatible 'rohm,bd71879' in
>> rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml as part of this series(?)
> 
> Do we want a separate chip_type now? Or do we want to add it later if
> we ever see a difference. My personal opinion is to wait until there is
> really a need.

Using the BD71828 chip_id for BD71879 in the MFD driver is fine to me. A 
comment saying they seem "functionally equivalent" can be added to 
explain this choice.

> If we do not need it, then it is a different series I think but sure
> I will produce such a patch.

Great, thanks! I think it's clearer to have it as own patch, but I think 
it fits in the same series - what suits you best. (Don't know if Lee or 
DT peeps have different opinion.)

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~