Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 03/13] dt-bindings: mfd: ti,tps6594: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC

[Conor Dooley]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:08:03AM +0100, Julien Panis wrote:
> On 2/14/24 18:45, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 09:26:13AM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > > Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 03:01:06PM +0530, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote:
> > > > > On Fri 2/9/2024 10:41 PM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 04:23:33PM +0530, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote:
> > > > > > > TPS65224 is a Power Management IC with 4 Buck regulators and 3 LDO
> > > > > > > regulators, it includes additional features like GPIOs, watchdog, ESMs
> > > > > > > (Error Signal Monitor), and PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine)
> > > > > > > managing the state of the device.
> > > > > > > TPS6594 and TPS65224 have significant functional overlap.
> > > > > > What does "significant functional overlap" mean? Does one implement a
> > > > > > compatible subset of the other? I assume the answer is no, given there
> > > > > > seems to be some core looking registers at different addresses.
> > > > > The intention behind “significant functional overlap” was meant to
> > > > > indicate a lot of the features between TPS6594 and TPS65224 overlap,
> > > > > while there are some features specific to TPS65224.
> > > > > There is compatibility between the PMIC register maps, I2C, PFSM,
> > > > > and other drivers even though there are some core registers at
> > > > > different addresses.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Would it be more appropriate to say the 2 devices are compatible and have
> > > > > sufficient feature overlap rather than significant functional overlap?
> > > > If core registers are at different addresses, then it is unlikely that
> > > > these devices are compatible.
> > > That's not necessarily true.  Hardware designers can sometimes be
> > > creative. :)
> > Hence "unlikely" in my mail :)
> 
> For tps6594 and tps65224, some core registers are at different adresses
> indeed, but the code is the same for both MFD I2C/SPI entry points. As an
> example, the way CRC is enabled is exactly the same, even if the bit that
> must be set belongs to different registers. tps65224 has more resources and
> it's as if HW designers had had to re-organize the way bits are distributed
> among the registers (due to a lack of space, so to speak).
> 
> That said, if we consider that these devices are not compatible, what does it
> imply concretely for the next version ? Does that mean that:
> 1) Only a new binding must be created, even if MFD drivers and most of child
> drivers will be re-used ? (then the binding would simply be duplicated, but
> the drivers would not)
> 2) A new binding and new MFD drivers must be created, even if most of child
> drivers will be re-used ? (then the binding and MFD drivers would simply be
> duplicated, but the child drivers would not)
> 3) A new binding and new drivers (MFD and child devices) must be created ?
> 4) Anything else ?

If they're not compatible the next version of this patch does not need
to change, so option 4 I guess.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature