[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE+NS37p38dAN1bAi_VvEYYGNiWDVFKrdHL-hTgi2nim_7Zvqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:21:06 +0800
From: Gene Chen <gene.chen.richtek@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Gene Chen <gene_chen@...htek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] regulator: mt6360: Add DT binding documentation
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> 於 2020年8月25日 週二 上午3:49寫道:
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:21:57PM +0800, Gene Chen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 03:53:42PM +0800, Gene Chen wrote:
>
> > > > + LDO_VIN3-supply:
> > > > + description: Input supply phandle(s) for LDO3
>
> > > Only LDO3 needs a supply?
>
> > LDO_VIN1/LDO_VIN2 is real MT6360 pin supply from VSYS to LDO1/2/3/5
> > LDO_VIN3 is also real pin supply from BUCK2 to LDO6/7
>
> So shouldn't there be a documented LDO_VIN1/2 then?
LDO_VINx is HW design layout, so actually it can't be changed by device tree.
LDO_VIN1/LDO_VIN2 supply from VSYS, not regulator, so I think usually
not to show the supply from in device tree.
or I should declare a dummy reference to system power like "*-supply =
<&system_power>;"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists