[PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: add optional current load properties

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 11/12/2024 07:20, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 06:52:47PM +0800, Ziyue Zhang wrote:
>>> On some platforms, the power supply for PCIe PHY is not able to provide
>>> enough current when it works in LPM mode. Hence, PCIe PHY driver needs to
>>> set current load to vote the regulator to HPM mode.
>>>
>>> Document the current load as properties for each power supply PCIe PHY
>>> required, namely vdda-phy-max-microamp, vdda-pll-max-microamp and
>>> vdda-qref-max-microamp, respectively.PCIe PHY driver should parse them to
>>> set appropriate current load during PHY power on.
>>>
>>> This three properties are optional and not mandatory for those platforms
>>> that PCIe PHY can still work with power supply.
>>
>>
>> Uh uh, so the downstream comes finally!
>>
>> No sorry guys, use existing regulator bindings for this.
>>
> 
> Maybe they got inspired by upstream UFS bindings?
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-common.yaml:
> 
> vcc-max-microamp
> vccq-max-microamp
> vccq2-max-microamp

And it is already an ABI, so we cannot do anything about it.

> 
> Regulator binding only describes the min/max load for the regulators and not

No, it exactly describes min/max consumers can use. Let's quote:
"largest current consumers may set"
It is all about consumers.

> consumers. What if the consumers need to set variable load per platform? Should

Then each platform uses regulator API or regulator bindings to set it? I
don't see the problem here.

> they hardcode the load in driver? (even so, the load should not vary for each
> board).

The load must vary per board, because regulators vary per board. Of
course in practice most designs could be the same, but regulators and
their limits are always properties of the board, not the SoC.

Best regards,
Krzysztof