[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9aedf384-207a-4eb7-a371-70bbe76ab5af@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:14:43 +0530
From: Beleswar Prasad Padhi <b-padhi@...com>
To: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
CC: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Tero
Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof
Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Keerthy
<j-keerthy@...com>,
Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@...com>,
Eric Chanudet
<echanude@...hat.com>,
Enric Balletbo <eballetb@...hat.com>, Udit Kumar
<u-kumar1@...com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j784s4-evm: Mark tps659413
regulators as bootph-all
On 14/09/24 00:27, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 04:27:47PM GMT, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 11/09/24 22:49, Andrew Halaney wrote:
>>> In order for the MCU domain to access this PMIC, a regulator
>>> needs to be marked appropriately otherwise it is not seen by SPL and
>>> therefore not configured.
>>>
>>> This is necessary if the MCU domain is to program the TPS6594 MCU ESM
>>> state machine, which is required to wire up the watchdog in a manner
>>> that will reset the board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts | 8 ++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
>>> index 6695ebbcb4d0..6ed628c2884e 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
>>> @@ -663,6 +663,7 @@ tps659413: pmic@48 {
>>> regulators {
>>> bucka12: buck12 {
>>> + bootph-all;
>>> regulator-name = "vdd_ddr_1v1";
>>> regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>;
>>> regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>;
>>
>> In my opinion, bootph-all property should come after other standard
>> properties like regulator-name etc., as it is least important to Linux. Same
>> comment for other nodes wherever applicable. What is your opinion?
>>
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst#n130
> I think that does align better with the dts-coding-style doc!
>
> Looking at the tree though, the standard currently in the TI folder
> is to put it first. In my opinion if changing the ordering is desired
> it should be done in one fell swoop (outside this series). I'd do
There is a series[0] under review which takes care of this bootph-
addition and order correction. In that series, looks like bootph- is
placed at the end of the list of all standard properties. So, it is
better if we align these patches to follow the same.
[0]:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240814-b4-upstream-bootph-all-v4-2-f2b462000f25@ti.com/
Thanks,
Beleswar
> it one big patch, but I'm curious if that's decided the way forward what
> the TI maintainers would like to see. I can send that patch if desired.
>
> For now I think sticking with the current practice in this series
> makes sense until that fell swoop happens.
>
> Please let me know if you feel strongly otherwise.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists