[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=V1VS=JyG=B2bp6w5XutUxcpzi6Bo7PADJ1GyzQkhM=Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:54:25 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Indicate
regulator-allow-set-load dependencies
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 1:20 PM Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> For RPMH regulators it doesn't make sense to indicate
> regulator-allow-set-load without saying what modes you can switch to,
> so be sure to indicate a dependency on regulator-allowed-modes.
>
> With this in place devicetree validation can catch issues like this:
>
> /mnt/extrassd/git/linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-hdk.dtb: pm8350-rpmh-regulators: ldo5: 'regulator-allowed-modes' is a dependency of 'regulator-allow-set-load'
> From schema: /mnt/extrassd/git/linux-next/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml
>
> Suggested-by: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
> ---
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220902185148.635292-1-ahalaney@redhat.com/
> Changes since v1:
> - Dropped first two patches in the series as they were user error
> (thanks Krzysztof for highlighting this!)
> - No change in the remaining patch
>
> Krzysztof also asked if this patch in particular should apply to other
> regulators, which I think it should for those regulator's who implement
> set_mode(). Unfortunately I don't know of a good way to get that
> information in order to apply it at a broader scope for devicetree
> regulator validation. At least with this in place RPMH users can get
> better coverage... if someone has suggestions for how to broaden the
> scope I'm all ears!
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists