Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] mfd: devicetree: bindings: Add Qualcomm SMD based RPM DT binding

From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com>,
	"bjorn@kryo.se" <bjorn@kryo.se>,
	Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] mfd: devicetree: bindings: Add Qualcomm SMD based RPM DT binding
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:53:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150727095347.GU11162@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150727072918.GU3436@x1>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1366 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 08:29:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:24:34AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> From here:

> > > > > > +                pm8941-regulators {
> > > > > > +                        compatible = "qcom,rpm-pm8941-regulators";
> > > > > > +                        vdd_l13_l20_l23_l24-supply = <&pm8941_boost>;

> > > > > I'd like Mark to glance at this.

> Mark: Is this new property okay?

As far as I can see that looks like a standard supply property, assuming
the supply is actually called that why would it be an issue?

> > The specified range of the regulator is 1.75-1.85V and this is handled
> > by the implementation, however the board designers have stated that it
> > is only allowed to be configured to 1.8V.

> > So DT is used to narrow the capabilities of the individual component to
> > something that's suitable for this particular system.

> > > We still need Mark to look at this.

> Is it okay for the regulator-{min,max}-microvolt to be artificially
> restricted to the required value, despite knowing that the regulator
> is capable of supply {more,less} voltage?

Yes, that's the entire purpose of those properties - to set the limits
the board designers have which will typically be more restrictive than
those that the regulator itself is capable of imposing.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]