From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matti Vaittinen Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:03:36 +0300 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] power: regulator: support ROHM BD71837 PMIC In-Reply-To: <3ec638180b97ce4acb8da2710c3a42c1ed816441.1553690211.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> References: <8a260f054876a14453e34b7e48ce69f56a19f17f.1553690211.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> <3ec638180b97ce4acb8da2710c3a42c1ed816441.1553690211.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> Message-ID: <20190404070336.GD3493@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi de Ho Peeps, On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > Add regulator driver for ROHM BD71837 PMIC. BD71837 contains > 8 bucks and 7 LDOS. Voltages for bucks 1-4 can be adjusted > when regulators are enabled. For other bucks and LDOs we may > have over- or undershooting if voltage is adjusted when > regulator is enabled. Thus this is prevented by default. > > BD71837 has a quirk which may leave power output disabled > after reset if enable/disable state was controlled by SW. > Thus the SW control is only allowed for bucks3 and 4 by > default. > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen > --- > drivers/power/regulator/Kconfig | 15 ++ > drivers/power/regulator/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/power/regulator/bd71837.c | 373 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/power/bd71837.h | 20 ++ > 4 files changed, 409 insertions(+) > This Patch: This was my first patch to U-boot so I wonder if there is something to improve. Is this Ok like this or should I have formatted it somehow differently? Also, is this type of submissions welcome? Any place to check if submissions are rejected, being reviewed or forgotten? Next Steps: Finally, the BD71837 is mainly targeted for powering the i.MX8M. There's another ROHM PMIC BD71847 - which is mainly used for powering the i.MX8MM. The Linux driver I wrote does support both of these PMICs and I was thinking that maybe I should add support for BD71847 in this u-Boot driver too. But before investing on that work I would like to get some feedback regarding the BD71837 u-boot driver. At least a sign that this kind of submissions are welcome or information if I am doing something completely wrong =) About RFC tag: I used RFC tag here mainly because I am unsure if the driver design fits what the u-boot is heading on or if this is kind of driver u-Boot should include. Is this correct use of RFC, and what are the consequences of using RFC-tag? My assumption was that the patch with RFC is reviewed as ither patches, but it is also a sign that the patch might have something that makes it unsuitable for applying to u-Boot. Is this correct? Finally, I guess I need to (re)submit the driver(s) without the RFC tag at some point, any suggestions when? Best Regards Matti Vaittinen