Re: [PATCH RFC/RFT 1/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j784s4-evm: Mark tps659413 and children as bootph-all

[Kumar, Udit]

Hi Andrew,

On 9/10/2024 10:50 PM, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 11:04:50AM GMT, Kumar, Udit wrote:
> > Thanks for your patch Andrew
> >
> >
> > On 9/7/2024 2:51 AM, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> > > In order for the MCU domain to access this PMIC and its children in
> > > u-boot SPL, the nodes need to be marked appropriately otherwise they
> > > are not seen by SPL.
> > >
> > > This is necessary if the MCU domain is to program the TPS6594 MCU ESM
> > > state machine, which is required to wire up the watchdog in a manner
> > > that will reset the board.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts | 11 +++++++++++
> > >    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
> > > index 6695ebbcb4d0..044a428136df 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
> > > @@ -642,6 +642,7 @@ eeprom@50 {
> > >    	};
> > >    	tps659413: pmic@48 {
> > > +		bootph-all;
> > >    		compatible = "ti,tps6594-q1";
> > >    		reg = <0x48>;
> > >    		system-power-controller;
> > > @@ -662,7 +663,10 @@ tps659413: pmic@48 {
> > >    		ldo4-supply = <&vsys_3v3>;
> > >    		regulators {
> > > +			bootph-all;
> > > +
> > >    			bucka12: buck12 {
> > > +				bootph-all;
> >
> > Add bootph in on regulator node should be enough,
> >
> > As I see SPL/u-boot does not need all nodes.
> Ahhh, I finally see now, all parents of a bootph-* node get that
> property. Makes sense.
>
> Would you rather see it in the regulators node, or all of the actual
> regulators (bucka12, buacka3... etc)?
>
> The former is all that's *needed* to get the PMIC ESM probing and
> programmed. The latter makes sense to me if we want to actual use the
> regulators in the future in that context... Doing just *one* of the
> regulators seems odd to me though, someone may want a different one,
> so if we describe one to SPL we may as well describe all.
>
> What are your thoughts?


For now, adding boothph for bucka12 regulator is enough

but other nodes may be needed in future so i suggest to keep in

all regulators nodes ( bucka12, buacka3... etc)


>