[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210311183231.GI4962@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:32:31 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: skakit@...eaurora.org
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
"open list:DRM DRIVER FOR MSM ADRENO GPU"
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, kgunda@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] regulator: qcom-rpmh: Correct the pmic5_hfsmps515
buck
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 09:45:41AM +0530, skakit@...eaurora.org wrote:
> On 2021-03-02 19:51, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > I'd still prefer to have two different regulator types (as we did for
> > pm8009 P=0 and P=1 variants). However it's probably up to the
> > maintainers to decide.
> As Mark already picked this, I think we can leave it this way.
As far as I can tell this is a system configuration issue, the board
constraints will ensure that we don't try to set a voltage that the
system can't support so there should be no need for this to be handled
as separate variants. That assumes that this P register field just
extends the values available, it doesn't have to be tied to some board
setup or anything. If it is a board configuration thing it probably
makes more sense to add a boolean property for it, ideally something
tied to whatever the board configuration is so that it's easier for
people to discover.
I had understood the pm8009 case as being two different parts with the
same name rather than two different options for the same part.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists