[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d97752ed-4032-4681-b28f-17f149fdc3d4@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 11:34:29 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Alina Yu <alina_yu@...htek.com>, lgirdwood@...il.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, johnny_lai@...htek.com,
cy_huang@...htek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] regulator: dt-bindings: rtq2208: Add property to
get ldo of RTQ2208 is adjustable or not
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 05:22:54PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 08:06:25PM +0800, Alina Yu wrote:
> > + richtek,fixed-microvolt = <1200000>;
> > regulator-min-microvolt = <1200000>;
> > regulator-max-microvolt = <1200000>;
> I'm dumb and this example seemed odd to me. Can you explain to me why
> it is not sufficient to set min-microvolt == max-microvolt to achieve
> the same thing?
This is for a special mode where the voltage being configured is out of
the range usually supported by the regulator, requiring a hardware
design change to achieve. The separate property is because otherwise we
can't distinguish the case where the mode is in use from the case where
the constraints are nonsense, and we need to handle setting a fixed
voltage on a configurable regulator differently to there being a
hardware fixed voltage on a normally configurable regulator.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists