On 06/07/2022 12:09, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 10:34:16AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 05/07/2022 15:39, Christian Marangi wrote:
>>> Add cells definition for rpm node and add missing regulators for the 4
>>> regulator present on ipq8064. There regulators are controlled by rpm and
>>> to correctly works gsbi4_i2c require to be NEVER disabled or rpm will
>>> reject any regulator change request.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Tested-by: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi
>>> index 1b4b72723ead..c0b05d2a2d6d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi
>>> @@ -844,10 +844,46 @@ rpm: rpm@108000 {
>>> clocks = <&gcc RPM_MSG_RAM_H_CLK>;
>>> clock-names = "ram";
>>>
>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>
>> Why adding these?
>>
>
> Fix dt warning, will split and put it in a separate commit.
>
>>> +
>>> rpmcc: clock-controller {
>>> compatible = "qcom,rpmcc-ipq806x", "qcom,rpmcc";
>>> #clock-cells = <1>;
>>> };
>>> +
>>> + smb208_regulators: regulators {
>>> + compatible = "qcom,rpm-smb208-regulators";
>>> + status = "okay";
>>
>> Was the node disabled?
>>
>
> smb208 is the normal and advised way to handle regulators on this
> platform. Some device may want to not follow that and implement their
> own regulator bypassing rpm so we add a status and on the current device
> present upstream we set it disabled as it does use different regulators
> implementation.
You just added a new node and say we set it as disabled... so the code
is not correct, because you enabled it. So again my question is valid -
was the node already existing and was it disabled?
>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
