Re: [RFC v2 1/3] power_supply: Define Binding for supplied-nodes

[Rhyland Klein]

On 2/22/2013 2:46 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 04:11 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> > This property is meant to be used in device nodes which represent
> > power_supply devices that wish to provide a list of supplies to
> > which they provide power. A common case is a AC Charger with
> > the batteries it powers.
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt
> > +Optional Properties:
> > + - power-supply : This property is added to a supply in order to list the
> > +   devices which supply it power, referenced by their phandles.
> DT properties that reference resources are usually named in the plural,
> so "power-supplies" would be more appropriate here.
>
> It seems plausible that a single DT node could represent/instantiate
> multiple separate supply objects. I think we want to employ the standard
> pattern of <phandle args*> rather than just <phandle>.
>
> That way, each supply that can supply others would have something like a
> #supply-cells = <n>, where n is the number of cells that the supply uses
> to name the multiple supplies provided by that node. 0 would be a common
> value here. 1 might be used for a node that represents many supplies.
>
> When a client supply uses a providing supply as the supply(!), do you
> need any flags to parameterize the connection? If so, that might be
> cause for a supplier to have a larger #supply-cells, so the flags could
> be represented.
>
> That all said, regulators assume 1 node == 1 regulator, so an
> alternative would be for a multi-supply node to include a child node per
> supply, e.g.:
>
> power@xxx {
>      ...
>      supply1 {
>          ...
>      };
>      supply2 {
>          ...
>      };
> };
>
> client {
>      supplies = <&supply1> <&supply2>;
> };
>
> I don't recall why regulators went for the style above rather than the
> #supply-cells style. Cc Mark Brown for any comment here.
>
> Also, do supplies and regulators need to inter-operate in any way (e.g.
> reference each-other in DT)?
>
> > +Example:
> > +
> > +	usb-charger: power@e {
> > +		compatible = "some,usb-charger";
> > +		...
> > +	};
> > +
> > +	ac-charger: power@e {
> > +		compatible = "some,ac-charger";
> > +		...
> > +	};
> > +
> > +	battery@b {
> > +		compatible = "some,battery";
> > +		...
> > +		power-supply = <&usb-charger>, <&ac-charger>;
> > +	};

The "connection" between supplier and supplies isn't really a hard 
connection.
Essentially, the core code uses the names/nodes in the list and iterates 
over
all the power_supplies that are registered and does matching.

I don't have any experience working with a single node that would spawn 
multiple
supplies, though the situation I am sure is possible. I am interested to 
see what
the consensus is around this design for multiple supplies, as I don't have a
preference either way.

-rhyland

--
nvpublic

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/