Il 03/08/23 09:42, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
The MT6366 PMIC is mostly, but not fully, compatible with MT6358. It has
a different set of regulators. Specifically, it lacks the camera related
VCAM* LDOs, but has additional VM18, VMDDR, and VSRAM_CORE LDOs.
Add a separate compatible for the MT6366 PMIC.
Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
We can express the same partial-compatibility state with bindings, adding a
new compatible here with the same platform data doesn't really add any value...
...also because in DT we'll have something like
compatible = "mediatek,mt6366", "mediatek,mt6358";
so if any variation of platform data in mtk-pmic-wrap will ever be needed, we
would still be able to do that in the future without any headache.
In my opinion, this commit can be dropped.
P.S.: We could add a comment in the mt6366.dtsi pmic devicetree for that, too?
Cheers,
Angelo
---
drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
index 11095b8de71a..e3c0e767033b 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
@@ -2257,6 +2257,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id of_slave_match_tbl[] = {
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6357", .data = &pmic_mt6357 },
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6358", .data = &pmic_mt6358 },
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6359", .data = &pmic_mt6359 },
+ /* MT6366 is mostly compatible with MT6358, except for slightly different regulators. */
+ { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6366", .data = &pmic_mt6358 },
/* The MT6380 PMIC only implements a regulator, so we bind it
* directly instead of using a MFD.
