From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:24:27 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/7] sunxi: power: Unify axp pmic function names In-Reply-To: <1444379501.1410.280.camel@hellion.org.uk> References: <1443882383-21181-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1443882383-21181-3-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <56103783.2090105@redhat.com> <1444379501.1410.280.camel@hellion.org.uk> Message-ID: <5617A3EB.5070001@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, On 09-10-15 10:31, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 22:16 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 03-10-15 16:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Hans de Goede >>> wrote: >>>> Stop prefixing the axp functions for setting voltages, etc. with the >>>> model number, there ever is only one pmic driver built into u-boot, >>>> this allows simplifying the callers. >>> >>> Hmm... What's going to happen with the A80, which has 2 PMICs? IIRC >>> a subset of their LDOs share the same name, which would be a problem. >> >> My plan for that is to use a different function name for the ldo-s >> on the secondary pmic, e.g. something like axp2_set_xldo1(...), or >> somesuch. Actually this patch should help adding support for the >> other pmics since it will make it less of an #ifdef fest. > > Is it going to be (or very likely to be) the case that a given AXPxxx > device will only ever be a primary or a secondary, but never used as both > (perhaps on different boards)? AFAIK that is correct, there are different axp models for primary / secondary pmics. Some a80 / a83 boards may only use the primary pmic, but using only the secondary is not really expected. > Is there some property of these devices which causes them to be only usable > as one or the other? No, not really (unless you count things like power-on / power-button handling which only the primary has AFAIK). > If there is some possibility of this not being the case then this > unification + my comments on patch #1 might be seen in a different light. > > Having a board which uses two of the same AXPxxx device looks like it would > be even more problematic, if such a thing is possible. AFAIK there are no boards which use the same pmic twice. > Or is the plan to just cross that bridge if/when we get there? (I think I'm > OK with that). Yes that is pretty much the plan :) Regards, Hans