[PATCH v5 09/18] arm64: dts: qcom: qrb5165-rb5: model the PMU of the QCA6391

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:51:25PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:48 PM Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:

> > It is generally a bad sign if there is a voltage range specified on a
> > regulator that's not got any indication that the voltage is going to be
> > actively managed, especially in situations like with several of the
> > supplies the DT was specifying where there are clear indications that
> > the supply is intended to be fixed voltage (or cases where every single
> > supply has a voltage range which would be highly unusual).  Looking at
> > the consumers might provide an explanation for such unusual and likely
> > incorrect constraints, and the lack of any consumers in conjunction with
> > other warning signs reenforces those warning signs.

> What do you recommend? No values at all in these regulators as it's
> the PMU which will manage those on its own once powered up by the host
> PMIC?

Unless something is actively going to change the voltages at runtime
or Linux needs to set a specific voltage (in which case minimum and
maximum should be identical) there should be nothing specified.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20240220/f72d61cd/attachment.sig>