[PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j784s4-evm: Mark tps659413 regulators as bootph-all

[Beleswar Prasad Padhi]

On 14/09/24 00:27, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 04:27:47PM GMT, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 11/09/24 22:49, Andrew Halaney wrote:
>>> In order for the MCU domain to access this PMIC, a regulator
>>> needs to be marked appropriately otherwise it is not seen by SPL and
>>> therefore not configured.
>>>
>>> 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 at redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts | 8 ++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 8 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..6ed628c2884e 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
>>> @@ -663,6 +663,7 @@ tps659413: pmic at 48 {
>>>    		regulators {
>>>    			bucka12: buck12 {
>>> +				bootph-all;
>>>    				regulator-name = "vdd_ddr_1v1";
>>>    				regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>;
>>>    				regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>;
>>
>> In my opinion, bootph-all property should come after other standard
>> properties like regulator-name etc., as it is least important to Linux. Same
>> comment for other nodes wherever applicable. What is your opinion?
>>
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst#n130
> I think that does align better with the dts-coding-style doc!
>
> Looking at the tree though, the standard currently in the TI folder
> is to put it first. In my opinion if changing the ordering is desired
> it should be done in one fell swoop (outside this series). I'd do


There is a series[0] under review which takes care of this bootph- 
addition and order correction. In that series, looks like bootph- is 
placed at the end of the list of all standard properties. So, it is 
better if we align these patches to follow the same.

[0]: 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240814-b4-upstream-bootph-all-v4-2-f2b462000f25@ti.com/


Thanks,
Beleswar

> it one big patch, but I'm curious if that's decided the way forward what
> the TI maintainers would like to see. I can send that patch if desired.
>
> For now I think sticking with the current practice in this series
> makes sense until that fell swoop happens.
>
> Please let me know if you feel strongly otherwise.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>