[PATCH 1/3] ARM: dt: tegra: seaboard: add regulators
Laxman Dewangan
ldewangan at nvidia.com
Tue Jun 26 02:38:24 EDT 2012
On Tuesday 26 June 2012 04:39 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 04:26 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 08:54:21PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>
>>> I had detailed discussion with Mark on this support and as per
>>> him (based on my understanding), the input to different regulator
>>> is from the pin of the chips and so the name should be the
>>> <pin-name>-supply which should be part of chip-dt binding, not
>>> to the particular rail.
>> More specifically, all the supplies for a device (including those
>> that happen to be inputs for regulators) should be specified in
>> exactly the same fashion. This makes the binding more regular and
>> means that users can just go through the schematic adding the
>> mappings without worrying about what what the supply happens to
>> be.
> Just making sure I parsed that right. I think what you're saying is
> that the device itself should represent its input pins, e.g.:
>
> tps6586x {
> vin-ldo01-supply =<&some_regulator>;
I think it is fine. The pin name as per data sheet is VINLDO01 and so we
can have vin-ldo01.
> vin-ldo23-supply =<...>;
> vin-ldo4-supply =<...>;
> vin-ldo678-supply =<...>;
> vin-ldo9-supply =<...>;
>
> regulators {
> regulator at 0 {
> regulator-compatible = "ldo0";
> ...
> };
> regulator at 1 {
> regulator-compatible = "ldo1";
> ...
> };
> };
> };
>
> (and then the driver internally uses the *-supply to set up the
> parents of each of its own regulators)
>
> ... rather than each regulator specifying its parent, which might
> result in some duplication, since in this case both ldo0/1 are
> supplied from the same input pin:
>
> tps6586x {
> regulators {
> regulator at 0 {
> regulator-compatible = "ldo0";
> vin-supply =<&some_regulator>;
> ...
> };
> regulator at 1 {
> regulator-compatible = "ldo1";
> vin-supply =<&some_regulator>;
> ...
> };
> };
> };
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list