[PATCH v9 6/7] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j721e-sk: Add TPS6594 family PMICs

[Neha Malcom Francis]

Hi Nishanth

On 07/12/23 19:19, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 11:01-20231207, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
>> Hi Nishanth, Udit,
>>
>> On 07/12/23 10:12, Kumar, Udit wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/5/2023 8:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>> On 15:04-20231205, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds support for TPS6594 PMIC family on wakeup I2C0 bus.
>>>>> These devices provide regulators (bucks and LDOs), but also GPIOs, a
>>>>> RTC, a watchdog, an ESM (Error Signal Monitor) which monitors the SoC
>>>>> error output signal, and a PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine)
>>>>> which manages the operational modes of the PMIC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis at ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 158 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts
>>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts
>>>>> index 42fe8eee9ec8..e600825f7e78 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j721e-sk.dts
>>>>> @@ -459,6 +459,13 @@ J721E_IOPAD(0x234, PIN_INPUT, 7) /* (U3)
>>>>> EXT_REFCLK1.GPIO1_12 */
>>>>>    };
>>>>>    &wkup_pmx0 {
>>>>> +    pmic_irq_pins_default: pmic-irq-default-pins {
>>>>> +        bootph-pre-ram;
>>>>> +        pinctrl-single,pins = <
>>>>> +            J721E_WKUP_IOPAD(0x0cc, PIN_INPUT, 7) /* (G28) WKUP_GPIO0_7 */
>>>>> +        >;
>>>>> +    };
>>>>> +
>>>>>        mcu_cpsw_pins_default: mcu-cpsw-default-pins {
>>>>>            pinctrl-single,pins = <
>>>>>                J721E_WKUP_IOPAD(0x84, PIN_INPUT, 0) /* (B24) MCU_RGMII1_RD0 */
>>>>> @@ -560,6 +567,157 @@ eeprom at 51 {
>>>>>            compatible = "atmel,24c512";
>>>>>            reg = <0x51>;
>>>>>        };
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    tps659413: pmic at 48 {
>>>>> +        bootph-pre-ram;
>>>> only for the leaf nodes. See
>>>> https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/armlinux/2023-10-19
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK, please correct me, u-boot still needs in all nodes ?
>>>
>>
>> That's what I believe as well, is it better to have only the leaf nodes in
>> kernel and have U-Boot DTSI handle the parent bootph properties? If so I'll
>> send out v10 making change accordingly.
>>
> 
> Yes, u-boot today needs it in all nodes. BUT, u-boot needs to be fixed in
> line to obey the rules of the schema convention that Rob clarified in
> the discussion above.
> 
> The other choice is NOT to introduce new bootph properties till u-boot
> is fixed up (this is also why I haven't sent out further updates for
> bootph properties for kernel in this cycle).
> 

I think we can have it following kernel convention here and fix up in the U-Boot 
DTSI for this series since PMIC nodes are needed. Thanks!

-- 
Thanking You
Neha Malcom Francis