On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 11:34 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > +- bus-supply > > > > + phandle to the regulator that provides power to i2c. > > > > > > I think this is not clear enough. I assume it means the regulator for > > > driving SCL/SDA? In the coverletter you mention also an EEPROM. In your > > > case, this is driven by the same regulator? I am skeptical we can > > > abstract it like this because I2C devices could be driven by various > > > regulators in the system, so there couldn't be one "bus regulator". The > > > regulator for the EEPROM should be described in the EEPROM node. So, > > > this "bus supply" is only for driving SCL/SDA? > > > > In our case the bus-supply regulator drives the voltage rail to which > > SCL/SDA are pulled up and there is an EEPROM on the bus, powered by > > yet another rail. There is also another slave on the bus which uses > > the same regulator as the bus-supply for its own power. > > > > In other words, bus-supply only ensures that SCL and SDA are in a > > usable state. Other consumers need to refer to the regulator in their > > own supplies if they need it for their own power. > > > > Does this answer your questions? > > Yes, this was exactly what I was assuming. > > So, I think the above documentation should be changed: s|i2c|SCL/SDA| > > D'accord? > Yes, I think SCL/SDA is better than i2c Tomasz, How about it? Thanks Bibby
