Hi Heiko,
On 2016/7/21 17:26, Heiko Stübner wrote:
Hi Frank,
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2016, 10:49:53 schrieb Frank Wang:
@@ -69,6 +69,15 @@
regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
};
+ vbus_host: vbus-host-regulator {
+ compatible = "regulator-fixed";
+ enable-active-high;
+ gpio = <&gpio4 25 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&host_vbus_drv>;
+ regulator-name = "vbus_host";
+ };
+
To match my schematics, this would probably be "vcc5v0_host".
Technically there are two regulators but since they are the same
voltage and enabled by the same GPIO it seems like modeling it as one
regulator is fine.
Yep, you are right, I will rename it.
If you really wanted to model things you could also include the input
supply (VCC5V0_SYS). Not sure how much you care to model in EVB.
Actually, from
"Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/fixed-regulator.txt" show,
input supply name is just optional property, and it seems that only do
assign "vin" value for input_supply (the second member of struct
fixed_voltage_config) if "vin-supply" is specified.
So is input supply name (VCC5V0_SYS) required here? Would you like to
give more comments please?
While vin-supply is optional, I think that is meant for real top-level
regulators (our vcc_sys or whatever) that really don't have a parent
regulator.
It is always nicer to model the whole power-tree [in a sane way], as it makes
following the schematics a lot easier. If you mount a debugfs these days you
can even get a nice tree graph of the regulator infrastructure ... where the
parent-relationship is also needed to create something meaningful.
Got it, many thanks for your explanation, I will add vin-supply next
version.
BR.
Frank
Heiko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
