On 23/08/2023 06:20, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:40 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 22/08/2023 21:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 22/08/2023 10:45, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>>> From: Zhiyong Tao <zhiyong.tao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The MediaTek MT6366 PMIC is similar to the MT6358 PMIC. It is designed >>>> to be paired with the MediaTek MT8186 SoC. It has 9 buck regulators and >>>> 29 LDO regulators, not counting ones that feed internally and basically >>>> have no controls. The regulators are named after their intended usage >>>> for the SoC and system design, thus not named generically as ldoX or >>>> dcdcX, but as vcn33 or vgpu. >>>> >>>> Add a binding document describing all the regulators and their supplies. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zhiyong Tao <zhiyong.tao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> [wens@xxxxxxxxxxxx: major rework and added commit message] >>>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Changes since v1: >>>> - Replaced underscores in supply names to hyphens >>>> - Merged with MT6358 regulator binding >>>> - Added MT6358 fallback compatible to MT6366 regulator >>>> >>>> Changes since Zhiyong's last version (v4) [1]: >>>> - simplified regulator names >>>> - added descriptions to regulators >>>> - removed bogus regulators (*_sshub) >>>> - merged vcn33-wifi and vcn33-bt as vcn33 >>>> - added missing regulators (vm18, vmddr, vsram-core) >>>> - cut down examples to a handful of cases and made them complete >>>> - expanded commit message a lot >>>> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220823123745.14061-1-zhiyong.tao@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> .../regulator/mediatek,mt6358-regulator.yaml | 227 +++++++++++++----- >>>> 1 file changed, 168 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mediatek,mt6358-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mediatek,mt6358-regulator.yaml >>>> index 82328fe17680..b350181f33ff 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mediatek,mt6358-regulator.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mediatek,mt6358-regulator.yaml >>>> @@ -16,14 +16,18 @@ description: | >>>> >>>> properties: >>>> compatible: >>>> - const: mediatek,mt6358-regulator >>>> + oneOf: >>>> + - const: mediatek,mt6358-regulator >>>> + - items: >>>> + - const: mediatek,mt6366-regulator >>>> + - const: mediatek,mt6358-regulator >>>> >>>> vsys-ldo1-supply: >>>> description: Supply for LDOs vfe28, vxo22, vcn28, vaux18, vaud28, vsim1, vusb, vbif28 >>>> vsys-ldo2-supply: >>>> - description: Supply for LDOs vldo28, vio28, vmc, vmch, vsim2 >>>> + description: Supply for LDOs vldo28 (MT6358 only), vio28, vmc, vmch, vsim2 >>>> vsys-ldo3-supply: >>>> - description: Supply for LDOs vcn33, vcama1, vcama2, vemc, vibr >>>> + description: Supply for LDOs vcn33, vcama[12] (MT6358 only), vemc, vibr >>>> vsys-vcore-supply: >>>> description: Supply for buck regulator vcore >>>> vsys-vdram1-supply: >>>> @@ -43,75 +47,138 @@ properties: >>>> vsys-vs2-supply: >>>> description: Supply for buck regulator vs2 >>>> vs1-ldo1-supply: >>>> - description: Supply for LDOs vrf18, vefuse, vcn18, vcamio, vio18 >>>> + description: Supply for LDOs vrf18, vefuse, vcn18, vcamio (MT6358 only), vio18 >>>> vs2-ldo1-supply: >>>> - description: Supply for LDOs vdram2 >>>> + description: Supply for LDOs vdram2, vmddr (MT6366 only) >>>> vs2-ldo2-supply: >>>> description: Supply for LDOs vrf12, va12 >>>> vs2-ldo3-supply: >>>> - description: Supply for LDOs vsram-gpu, vsram-others, vsram-proc11, vsram-proc12 >>>> - vs2-ldo4-supply: >>>> - description: Supply for LDO vcamd >>>> - >>>> -patternProperties: >>>> - "^buck_v(core|dram1|gpu|modem|pa|proc1[12]|s[12])$": >>>> - description: Buck regulators >>>> - type: object >>>> - $ref: regulator.yaml# >>>> - unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> - >>>> - "^ldo_v(a|rf)12": >>>> - description: LDOs with fixed 1.2V output and 0~100/10mV tuning >>>> - type: object >>>> - $ref: regulator.yaml# >>>> - unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> - >>>> - "^ldo_v((aux|cn|io|rf)18|camio)": >>>> - description: LDOs with fixed 1.8V output and 0~100/10mV tuning >>>> - type: object >>>> - $ref: regulator.yaml# >>>> - unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> - >>>> - "^ldo_vxo22": >>>> - description: LDOs with fixed 2.2V output and 0~100/10mV tuning >>>> - type: object >>>> - $ref: regulator.yaml# >>>> - unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> - >>>> - "^ldo_v(aud|bif|cn|fe|io)28": >>>> - description: LDOs with fixed 2.8V output and 0~100/10mV tuning >>>> - type: object >>>> - $ref: regulator.yaml# >>>> - unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> - >>>> - "^ldo_vusb": >>>> - description: LDOs with fixed 3.0V output and 0~100/10mV tuning >>>> - type: object >>>> - $ref: regulator.yaml# >>>> - unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> - >>>> - "^ldo_vsram_(gpu|others|proc1[12])$": >>>> - description: LDOs with variable output >>>> - type: object >>>> - $ref: regulator.yaml# >>>> - unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> - >>>> - "^ldo_v(cama[12]|camd|cn33|dram2|efuse|emc|ibr|ldo28|mc|mch|sim[12])$": >>>> - description: LDOs with variable output and 0~100/10mV tuning >>>> - type: object >>>> - $ref: regulator.yaml# >>>> - unevaluatedProperties: false >>> >>> I don't understand. You just added it and it is already wrong? Please, >>> do not add code which is clearly incorrect. >> >> Sent too early - anyway properties cannot be defined in allOf:. That's >> not the place for them and there is no single reason for it. From which >> regulator binding you got this example? > > None. It was simply a way I figured out when I was reading up on JSON > schema syntax. I wanted to split the definitions cleanly, since they > are very different. And with "unevaluatedProperties: false" in the base > schema it did seem to work, successfully evaluating existing device trees > and producing errors when extra properties were added, or if types didn't > match up. If they are very different, this should not have been one binding. There is little benefit of that. > > Now that you mention it, I suppose the preferred way to write it is to > have all the properties in the base schema, then negate the ones that > don't belong in the allOf: section? It just seems really repetitive given > the child node names for the chip variants are completely different. OOTH > I guess it would produce better error messages. For regular cases yes, but not if devices differ so much. Best regards, Krzysztof
