[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4395bea9-44d7-4f0f-81d6-c1e05976a308@riscstar.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 07:28:58 -0600
From: Alex Elder <elder@...cstar.com>
To: Guodong Xu <guodong@...cstar.com>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Yixun Lan <dlan@...too.org>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Troy Mitchell <troy.mitchell@...ux.spacemit.com>,
Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
spacemit@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] regulator: spacemit-p1: Update supply names
On 1/23/26 6:20 PM, Guodong Xu wrote:
> Update supply names to match the P1 PMIC's actual hardware pinout where
> each buck has an individual VIN pin (vin1-vin6) and LDO groups have
> dedicated input pins (aldoin, dldoin1, dldoin2).
>
> The supply is a board design decision and should not be hardcoded to any
> existing power source. This allows boards to specify their actual power
> tree topology in devicetree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guodong Xu <guodong@...cstar.com>
These are good changes but I have a suggestion on the way
you define the DLDO descriptors. I might be mistaken but
I think you should make this change.
Aside from that:
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@...cstar.com>
> ---
> v2: No change.
> ---
> drivers/regulator/spacemit-p1.c | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/spacemit-p1.c b/drivers/regulator/spacemit-p1.c
> index 2b585ba01a93..57e6e00a73fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/spacemit-p1.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/spacemit-p1.c
> @@ -87,13 +87,16 @@ static const struct linear_range p1_ldo_ranges[] = {
> }
>
> #define P1_BUCK_DESC(_n) \
> - P1_REG_DESC(BUCK, buck, _n, "vin", 0x47, BUCK_MASK, 255, p1_buck_ranges)
> + P1_REG_DESC(BUCK, buck, _n, "vin" #_n, 0x47, BUCK_MASK, 255, p1_buck_ranges)
That was a simple change...
> #define P1_ALDO_DESC(_n) \
> - P1_REG_DESC(ALDO, aldo, _n, "vin", 0x5b, LDO_MASK, 128, p1_ldo_ranges)
> + P1_REG_DESC(ALDO, aldo, _n, "aldoin", 0x5b, LDO_MASK, 128, p1_ldo_ranges)
As stated before, I believe the 128 should be 117 here. (If
you change the earlier patch, make sure the change to 128
doesn't persist here.) Same comment for the DLDO regulators.
> -#define P1_DLDO_DESC(_n) \
> - P1_REG_DESC(DLDO, dldo, _n, "buck5", 0x67, LDO_MASK, 128, p1_ldo_ranges)
> +#define P1_DLDO1_DESC(_n) \
> + P1_REG_DESC(DLDO, dldo, _n, "dldoin1", 0x67, LDO_MASK, 128, p1_ldo_ranges)
Why can't you use _n here like you did for P1_BUCK_DESC() above?
> +
> +#define P1_DLDO2_DESC(_n) \
> + P1_REG_DESC(DLDO, dldo, _n, "dldoin2", 0x67, LDO_MASK, 128, p1_ldo_ranges)
So this is generalizing the input, which is good. The use
of "buck5" here was a Banana Pi BPI-F3 design and but it
doesn't have to be that way.
> static const struct regulator_desc p1_regulator_desc[] = {
> P1_BUCK_DESC(1),
> @@ -108,13 +111,13 @@ static const struct regulator_desc p1_regulator_desc[] = {
> P1_ALDO_DESC(3),
> P1_ALDO_DESC(4),
>
> - P1_DLDO_DESC(1),
> - P1_DLDO_DESC(2),
> - P1_DLDO_DESC(3),
> - P1_DLDO_DESC(4),
> - P1_DLDO_DESC(5),
> - P1_DLDO_DESC(6),
> - P1_DLDO_DESC(7),
> + P1_DLDO1_DESC(1),
> + P1_DLDO1_DESC(2),
> + P1_DLDO1_DESC(3),
> + P1_DLDO1_DESC(4),
> + P1_DLDO2_DESC(5),
> + P1_DLDO2_DESC(6),
> + P1_DLDO2_DESC(7),
> };
>
> static int p1_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists