[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b306a27e-505e-43d4-aaf8-ab31284a3396@roeck-us.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:17:04 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, mazziesaccount@...il.com,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tda38640: Add interrupt &
regulator properties
On 2/14/24 11:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> Why "vout0" if there's only one output? Is it called that in the
>>> documentation? I had a quick check but only saw it called "vout".
>>> Are there other related devices that would have multiple regulators
>>> that might end up sharing the binding?
>>>
>>
>> Primarily because that is what the PMBus core generates for the driver
>> because no one including me was aware that this is unacceptable
>> for single-output drivers.
>
> Is it unacceptable? If you're implying that I am saying it is, that's
> not what I was doing here - I'm just wondering why it was chosen.
> Numbering when there's only one seems odd, so I was just looking for the
> rationale.
>
Given the tendency of corporate speak (aka "this was a good attempt" for
a complete screwup), and since this did come up before, I did interpret
it along that line. My apologies if that was not the idea.
Still, I really don't know how to resolve this for existing PMBus drivers
which do register "vout0" even if there is only a single output regulator.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists