linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: mfd: x-powers,axp152: Add polyphased property

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e1e31e6c-59e9-422c-af72-718fcb7051aa@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 16:02:49 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mikhail Kalashnikov <iuncuim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: mfd: x-powers,axp152: Add
 polyphased property

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:52:45PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 2:16 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:

> > > Add the "x-powers,polyphased" property to the binding, to describe those
> > > pairs or tuples of regulators that should work together. In the lead
> > > regulator node, the property lists the phandles of the connected
> > > regulators. Just an empty property means no poly-phasing.

> > Don't we have a coupled regulator binding already?

> That was my first thought as well.

That's something separate, that's two separate regulators that need to
be kept within a range of each other manually.

> Unlike separate regulators that are ganged together, in the AXP PMICs it
> seems that when buck outputs are ganged, only the controls for the first
> output have any actual effect. In such cases I don't know if we should
> just ignore / leave out the secondary outputs from both the description
> and the runtime state.

This is very common, I would expect any regulators that are ganged
together into a single regulator like this to simply not appear in the
DT.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)