On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 15:43:21 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 04:36:10PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote: > > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > OK... I mean, if they're not using the regulator framework I'm not sure > > > it has much impact - there are plenty of internal regulators in devices > > > already so it wouldn't be *too* unusual other than the fact that AFAICT > > > this is somewhat split between devices within the subsystem? Neither of > > > the messages was super clear. > > > PSE Power Interface (which is kind of the RJ45 in PSE world) have similar > > functionalities as regulators. We wondered if registering a regulator for > > each PSE PI (RJ45 ports) is a good idea. The point is that the PSE > > controller driver will be its own regulator consumer. > > I can't find any example in Linux with such a case of a driver being a > > provider and a consumer of its own regulator. This idea of a regulator > > biting its own tail seems weird to me. Maybe it is better to implement the > > PSE functionalities even if they are like the regulator functionalities. > > Is it at all plausible that a system (perhaps an embedded one) might use > something other than PSE? Do you mean to supply power to a RJ45 port? This can be done with a simple regulator. In that case we use the pse_regulator driver which is a regulator consumer. I don't know about other cases. Oleksij do you? Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
