[PATCH v2 13/15] arm64: dts: qcom: pmi632: define USB-C related blocks

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 1/17/24 23:01, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 11:00:53AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 13.01.2024 21:55, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> Define VBUS regulator and the Type-C handling block as present on the
>>> Quacomm PMI632 PMIC.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue at linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi632.dtsi | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi632.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi632.dtsi
>>> index 4eb79e0ce40a..d6832f0b7b80 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi632.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi632.dtsi
>>> @@ -45,6 +45,36 @@ pmic at 2 {
>>>   		#address-cells = <1>;
>>>   		#size-cells = <0>;
>>>   
>>> +		pmi632_vbus: usb-vbus-regulator at 1100 {
>>> +			compatible = "qcom,pmi632-vbus-reg", "qcom,pm8150b-vbus-reg";
>>> +			reg = <0x1100>;
>>> +			status = "disabled";
>>> +		};
>>> +
>>> +		pmi632_typec: typec at 1500 {
>>> +			compatible = "qcom,pmi632-typec";
>>> +			reg = <0x1500>;
>>> +			interrupts = <0x2 0x15 0x00 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>>> +				     <0x2 0x15 0x01 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>,
>>> +				     <0x2 0x15 0x02 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>>> +				     <0x2 0x15 0x03 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>,
>>> +				     <0x2 0x15 0x04 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>>> +				     <0x2 0x15 0x05 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>>> +				     <0x2 0x15 0x06 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>,
>>> +				     <0x2 0x15 0x07 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>> This differs from the downstream irq types:
>>
>> <0x2 0x15 0x0 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>,
>> <0x2 0x15 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>,
>> <0x2 0x15 0x2 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>> <0x2 0x15 0x3 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>> <0x2 0x15 0x4 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>,
>> <0x2 0x15 0x5 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>> <0x2 0x15 0x6 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>> <0x2 0x15 0x7 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>>
> 
> Interrupt 1, 3, and 6 are level interrupts for which it's reasonable to
> act on both edges. Interrupt 0, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are "pulse interrupts",
> for which it seems reasonable to act on only one of the edges.
> 
> To me, Dmitry's proposed version makes more sense than downstream.

Thanks a lot for crosschecking!

Konrad