[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200610100008.GA5005@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:00:08 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@...eaurora.org>,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] dt-bindings: mmc: Supply max load for mmc supplies
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 05:02:16PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:17:54PM +0530, Veerabhadrarao Badiganti wrote:
> > + vmmc-supply-max-microamp:
> > + description: Maximum load for the card power.
> > + vqmmc-supply-max-microamp:
> > + description: Maximum load for the bus IO line power.
> By a 'common regulator property' I meant documented with regulator
> binding like *-supply, not common to MMC. How is MMC special?
TBH I'm surprised that these aren't defined by the MMC spec or by the ID
information from the part we find connected - I'd not expect the board
to be defining these at all.
> Thinking about this some more, what's wrong with the max current in the
> regulator nodes? I suppose you could have more than one load and need to
> define the loads separately?
One of the bigger reasons to think about the loads would be to
dynamically configure the mode the regulator is in to go into a more
efficient mode when some of the devices attached to it are turned off.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists