From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5CAC3A589 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E131622DD3 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:23:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730839AbfHTVXH (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 17:23:07 -0400 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([85.220.165.71]:42203 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728283AbfHTVXG (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 17:23:06 -0400 Received: from pty.hi.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:100:1d::c5]) by metis.ext.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1i0Bap-0003EB-OR; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 23:23:03 +0200 Received: from ukl by pty.hi.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i0Bap-0001UJ-3l; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 23:23:03 +0200 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 23:23:03 +0200 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Rob Herring Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Mark Brown , Sascha Hauer , "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] dt-bindings: regulator: define a mux regulator Message-ID: <20190820212303.dhdo7g7kvisgeb3h@pengutronix.de> References: <20190820152511.15307-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:67c:670:100:1d::c5 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Rob, On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:39:27AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:25 AM Uwe Kleine-König > wrote: > > > > A mux regulator is used to provide current on one of several outputs. It > > might look as follows: > > > > ,------------. > > -- > -- > -- > -- > -- > -- > -- > -- > `------------' > > > > Depending on which address is encoded on the three address inputs A0, A1 > > and A2 the current provided on IN is provided on one of the eight > > outputs. > > > > What is new here is that the binding makes use of a #regulator-cells > > property. This uses the approach known from other bindings (e.g. gpio) > > to allow referencing all eight outputs with phandle arguments. This > > requires an extention in of_get_regulator to use a new variant of > > of_parse_phandle_with_args that has a cell_count_default parameter that > > is used in absence of a $cell_name property. Even if we'd choose to > > update all regulator-bindings to add #regulator-cells = <0>; we still > > needed something to implement compatibility to the currently defined > > bindings. > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König > > --- > > Hello, > > > > the obvious alternative is to add (here) eight subnodes to represent the > > eight outputs. This is IMHO less pretty, but wouldn't need to introduce > > #regulator-cells. > > I'm okay with #regulator-cells approach. OK, then I will look into that in more detail; unless the regulator guys don't agree with this approach of course. > > Apart from reg = <..> and a phandle there is (I think) nothing that > > needs to be specified in the subnodes because all properties of an > > output (apart from the address) apply to all outputs. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Best regards > > Uwe > > > > .../bindings/regulator/mux-regulator.yaml | 52 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mux-regulator.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mux-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mux-regulator.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..f06dbb969090 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mux-regulator.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) is preferred. OK. > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/regulator/mux-regulator.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: MUX regulators > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + const: XXX,adb708 > > ? I assume you will split this into a common and specific schemas. I > suppose there could be differing ways to control the mux just like all > other muxes. Not sure if a specific schema is necessary. I wrote XXX because I was offline while I authored the binding and so couldn't determine the right vendor to use. > > + enable-gpios: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + address-gpios: > > + description: Array of typically three GPIO pins used to select the > > + regulator's output. The least significant address GPIO must be listed > > + first. The others follow in order of significance. > > + minItems: 1 > > + > > + "#regulator-cells": > > How is this not required? It should. For the RFC patch I didn't took the time to iron all the details. My main concern was/is how the binding should look like and if an #regulator-cells with a default would be acceptable. Best regards and thanks for your feedback, Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |