Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: qcom-pm8008: support PMICs with no interrupt line

[Jishnu Prakash]

Hi Oleg,

On 9/8/2026 7:10 PM, Oleg Keri wrote:
> Please drop this series.
> 
> It duplicates, as a strict subset, work that was already on the list a day
> before I posted:
> 
>   [v2,3/6] dt-bindings: mfd: pm8008: Add PM8010 I2C support
>   [v2,5/6] mfd: qcom-pm8008: Add support for PM8010 PMIC
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260907-glymur_camss-v2-0-75f7982dc983@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> Nihal's 3/6 relaxes the same required: entries mine does and more, and adds
> the qcom,pm8010-i2c compatible; his 5/6 already carries the no-interrupt
> path my 2/2 was adding:
> 
>   static const struct mfd_cell pm8008_no_irq_cells[] = {
>           MFD_CELL_NAME("pm8008-regulator"),
>   };
> 
> on top of a PM8010 IRQ chip, match data and a pm8010-regulator cell. There
> is nothing in my series that his does not do better. My apologies for the
> noise - I should have searched the list before posting.
> 
> Nihal, if it is useful: the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x Gen 11 (glymur, DMI 83QR)
> has a PM8010 whose INT pin is genuinely not routed on the board, so it
> exercises your no-IRQ path rather than being a DT omission. I have been
> running an equivalent no-IRQ path there since 2026-08-25 - the LDOs
> register and the OV08X40 works - and I am happy to test your series on it
> and send a Tested-by once I have actually run it.

Thanks, we would appreciate this. Please note Mark has asked us to split the existing
series, so we would be sending out separate patch series soon for CAMSS support
and PM8010 support.

> 
> Your 6/6 also shows that describing a PM8010 as "qcom,pm8008", which is
> what I do today, silently programs the wrong voltage ranges. On that board
> the sensor takes dovdd from ldo4 at 1.8 V, and:
> 
>   pm8008_pldo_ranges    1504000 + 8000 * n   ->  1.8 V is selector 37
>   pm8010_pldo_lv_ranges 1800000 + 200000 * n ->  1.8 V is selector 0
> 
> so the same regulator-min/max-microvolt lands on a completely different
> register value depending on which compatible the node carries. ldo3 and
> ldo6 have the same split. ldo2 and ldo7 happen to map identically because
> the nldo and pldo ranges share a base and step and differ only in their
> upper bound.
> 
> The camera works on my board today despite this, which I would treat as
> luck rather than evidence that it is harmless. It does mean your series
> fixes a latent bug for boards already describing a PM8010 as qcom,pm8008,

Just asking, have you noticed any boards doing this currently ?

Thanks,
Jishnu

> not merely adding a new compatible - worth a line in 6/6 if you respin,
> since those boards need the DT change and the driver change together.