[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230802175715.GJ1428172@hu-bjorande-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:57:15 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
CC: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@...cinc.com>, <agross@...nel.org>,
<andersson@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] arm64: dts: qcom: sdx75-idp: Add regulator nodes
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 02:49:56PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 2.08.2023 11:59, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
> > Add the regulators found on SDX75 IDP.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@...cinc.com>
> > ---
> [...]
>
>
> > + vreg_s2b_1p224: smps2 {
> Even though most RPMh devices use the schematic-like names, I think naming
> the labels like pmicname_regname, e.g. pm8550_l2 would be easier to read..
> (Bjorn, Krzysztof - opinions?)
>
Using the naming from the schematics is preferred, and avoid various
levels of ambiguity.
> On top of that, please add labels to all of the regulators you're
> introducing to limit unnecessary diff in the future.
>
There are cases where regulators are left on by the bootloader, but
doesn't have a function, or name, in the particular board. In this case
it might be unnecessary (or not possible) to label the regulator, but we
still might want to list the regulator so it will be turned off
automatically.
But such decision is explicit and should be mentioned either in a
comment or in the commit message.
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists