On 20/03/2023 17:35, Julien Panis wrote:
Yes.
On 3/20/23 16:53, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:07:33PM +0100, Julien Panis wrote:Thank you for your feedback.
TPS6594 is a Power Management IC which provides regulators and othersAs mentioned, the binding needs to be complete. It's missing GPIO at
features like GPIOs, RTC, watchdog, ESMs (Error Signal Monitor), and
PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine) managing the state of the
device.
TPS6594 is the super-set device while TPS6593 and LP8764X are derivatives.
least. RTC and watchdog may or may not need binding changes.
About GPIO, do you speak about 'gpio-controller'
and/or '#gpio-cells' properties ?
For RTC (and for watchdog, once the driver will beProperties from RTC schema, e.g. start-year, wakeup etc.
implemented), our driver do not require any node
to work. What could make an explicit instantiation
necessary in DT ?
Somehow reminds me qcom,bus-id, but the wording and code are not exactlyIncluding 'primary' and 'pmic' will be more understandable indeed.+ ti,spmi-controller:Perhaps the property name should include 'primary' and 'pmic'.
+ type: boolean
+ description: |
+ Identify the primary PMIC on SPMI bus.
Otherwise, it looks like it is just marked as 'a SPMI controller'.
I will change that in v3.
I don't think so. I will double-check that.
+ A multi-PMIC synchronization scheme is implemented in the PMIC deviceIs this a TI specific feature?
+ to synchronize the power state changes with other PMIC devices. This is
+ accomplished through a SPMI bus: the primary PMIC is the controller
+ device on the SPMI bus, and the secondary PMICs are the target devices
+ on the SPMI bus.
If not, shall I remove the 'ti,' prefix ?
the same. The question here is whether this is generic feature of all
SPMI devices or PMICs, or device specific. If it is generic, then naming
and type should be chosen a bit more carefully and then indeed skip
"ti," prefix.
None of other regulators do it but you could add something.Coupled regulator stuff works here.+coupled regulator stuff doesn't work here?
+ system-power-controller: true
+
+ interrupts:
+ maxItems: 1
+
+ ti,multi-phase-id:
+ description: |
+ Describes buck multi-phase configuration, if any. For instance, XY id means
+ that outputs of buck converters X and Y are combined in multi-phase mode.
+ $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
+ enum: [12, 34, 123, 1234]
Is it also necessary to specify some 'allOf' logic here to ensure
that mutual exclusions described below (for regulators) will be
applied ?
Best regards,
Krzysztof