[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240209-blitz-fidgety-78469aa80d6d@spud>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 17:11:46 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@...s.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, m.nirmaladevi@...s.com, lee@...nel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, jpanis@...libre.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, nm@...com, vigneshr@...com,
kristo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 03/13] dt-bindings: mfd: ti,tps6594: Add TI
TPS65224 PMIC
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 04:23:33PM +0530, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote:
> TPS65224 is a Power Management IC with 4 Buck regulators and 3 LDO
> regulators, it includes additional features like GPIOs, watchdog, ESMs
> (Error Signal Monitor), and PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine)
> managing the state of the device.
> TPS6594 and TPS65224 have significant functional overlap.
What does "significant functional overlap" mean? Does one implement a
compatible subset of the other? I assume the answer is no, given there
seems to be some core looking registers at different addresses.
Thanks,
Conor.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists