[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de3acab7-cf76-3135-9ff8-a0e5537a434b@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:16:46 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Julien Panis <jpanis@...libre.com>, lee@...nel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
corbet@....net, arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
derek.kiernan@...inx.com, dragan.cvetic@...inx.com
Cc: eric.auger@...hat.com, jgg@...pe.ca, razor@...ckwall.org,
stephen@...workplumber.org, davem@...emloft.net,
christian.koenig@....com, contact@...rsion.fr,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, sterzik@...com, u-kumar1@...com,
eblanc@...libre.com, jneanne@...libre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: Add TI TPS6594 PMIC
On 22/03/2023 09:01, Julien Panis wrote:
>>> + ti,multi-phase-id:
>>> + description: |
>>> + Describes buck multi-phase configuration, if any. For instance, XY id means
>>> + that outputs of buck converters X and Y are combined in multi-phase mode.
>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
>> No improvements here. As Rob pointed out, this looks like coupled
>> regulators.
>
> I used 'oneOf' logic to handle mutual exclusion. But it seems that I did not
> understand what you and Rob expected.
> Does some generic property already exist for 'coupled regulators' ?
Yes, see regulator.yaml binding.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists