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

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 13:17, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio at linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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!

Is there an ack?


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry