[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42054d03-e1fe-4f57-a74d-9338dadb5e43@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:59:39 +0530
From: Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@...com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
CC: <vigneshr@...com>, <kristo@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
<a-nandan@...com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<eblanc@...libre.com>, <jneanne@...libre.com>,
<aseketeli@...libre.com>, <jpanis@...libre.com>, <u-kumar1@...com>,
<j-luthra@...com>, <vaishnav.a@...com>, <hnagalla@...com>,
<devarsht@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Add TPS6594 PMIC support on several boards
Hi Nishanth,
On 23/11/23 12:54, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 16:15-20231122, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
>> TPS6594 is a Power Management IC which provides regulators and others
>> features like GPIOs, RTC, watchdog, ESMs (Error Signal Monitor), and
>> PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine). The SoC and the PMIC can
>> communicate through the I2C or SPI interfaces.
>> TPS6594 is the super-set device while TPS6593 and LP8764 are derivatives.
>>
>> This series adds device tree nodes for TI TPS6594 PMICs found in the
>> following boards:
>> - J721EXSOMXEVM:
>> Link: https://www.ti.com/tool/J721EXSOMXEVM
>> - J721S2XSOMXEVM:
>> Link: https://www.ti.com/tool/J721S2XSOMXEVM
>> - J7200XSOMXEVM:
>> Link: https://www.ti.com/tool/J7200XSOMXEVM
>> - J784S4XEVM
>> Link: https://www.ti.com/tool/J784S4XEVM
>>
>> Boot Logs:
>> https://gist.github.com/nehamalcom/384cf594e37739a34f8a08664830e37a
>>
>> ---
>> Changes from v6:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230810-tps6594-v6-0-2b2e2399e2ef@ti.com/
>> - Modify patch series to include only patches not merged (J7)
>> - Add boot logs for all affected boards
>
> So what changed for j721s2?
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230810024700.4qhgygd6mma4sw2u@kobold/
>
> And, there is no defconfig patch? Then how did the test work? if you
> have done local .config changes, that should have been defconfig patch.
Sorry about that... sending a next version with the defconfig patch.
>
> Also did you audit the SKs to make sure they don't need this?
>
I did a test run across all SKs (although I didn't add that in the cover-letter)
but didn't double-check whether they need it, I'll do that too, thanks for
reviewing!
>
--
Thanking You
Neha Malcom Francis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists