On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 07:21:58PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I'm limiting the audience of this compared to the PCI power sequencing
> series as I wanted to run the DT part by the maintainers before I commit
> to a doomed effort.
>
With linux-arm-msm and deviectree in there, you have a fairly big
limited audience... I think if anything, your proposal is doomed by the
lack of a proper commit message describing what this is.
Below you'll find some questions/feedback based on our previous
discussions on the topic, although I'm not able to understand the
motivations behind what you propose - or even fully what it is that
you're proposing.
> Here is the DT representation of the QCA6390's PMU with its inputs and
> outputs. If I were to implement the pwrseq framework that would be able
> to assign the relevant pwrseq data to the consumer based on the actual
> regulators and not abstract bt-pwrseq or wlan-pwrseq properties - would
> that fly with you?
>
Why do you need to make up this intermediate/fake "PMU" thing? The
regulators are reference counted already.
> We'd need to deprecate the existing BT bindings but unfortunately they
> are already described as consuming the host PMIC regulators in bindings.
>
I was under the impression that the supplies in the bluetooth binding
are the supply pads of the chip. Where the power to those pads come from
is not a property of the binding.
So what you need to do is describe why the pads suddenly changed.
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb5165-rb5.dts | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi | 10 ++
> 2 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb5165-rb5.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb5165-rb5.dts
> index cd0db4f31d4a..c9b1600c57ef 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb5165-rb5.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb5165-rb5.dts
> @@ -108,6 +108,88 @@ lt9611_3v3: lt9611-3v3 {
> regulator-always-on;
> };
>
> + qca6390_pmu: pmu@0 {
This is not a thing.
> + compatible = "qcom,qca6390-pmu";
> +
> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> + pinctrl-0 = <&bt_en_state>, <&wlan_en_state>;
> +
> + vddaon-supply = <&vreg_s6a_0p95>;
> + vddpmu-supply = <&vreg_s2f_0p95>;
> + vddrfa1-supply = <&vreg_s2f_0p95>;
> + vddrfa2-supply = <&vreg_s8c_1p3>;
> + vddrfa3-supply = <&vreg_s5a_1p9>;
> + vddpcie1-supply = <&vreg_s8c_1p3>;
> + vddpcie2-supply = <&vreg_s5a_1p9>;
> + vddio-supply = <&vreg_s4a_1p8>;
> +
> + bt-enable-gpios = <&tlmm 21 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> + wifi-enable-gpios = <&tlmm 20 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> + swctrl-gpios = <&tlmm 124 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
Are these collected here because we still have convinced ourselves that
they need to be handled from a common place, or did you actually find
some documentation you can point to that shows this is necessary?
> +
> + regulators {
> + vreg_pmu_rfa_cmn: ldo0 {
> + regulator-name = "vreg_pmu_rfa_cmn";
> + regulator-min-microvolt = <760000>;
> + regulator-max-microvolt = <840000>;
These limits should be applied to &vreg_s2f_0p95 (although I'm just
guessing how this maps to the upstream supply...
> + };
[..]
> @@ -734,6 +816,24 @@ &pcie0_phy {
> vdda-pll-supply = <&vreg_l9a_1p2>;
> };
>
> +&pcieport0 {
> + wifi@0 {
> + compatible = "pci17cb,1101";
Does this compatible somehow bind to a entity that knows what to do with
the regulators below?
> + reg = <0x10000 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
> +
> + vddrfacmn-supply = <&vreg_pmu_rfa_cmn>;
> + vddaon-supply = <&vreg_pmu_aon_0p59>;
> + vddwlcx-supply = <&vreg_pmu_wlcx_0p8>;
> + vddwlmx-supply = <&vreg_pmu_wlmx_0p85>;
> + vddbtcmx-supply = <&vreg_pmu_btcmx_0p85>;
> + vddrfa0-supply = <&vreg_pmu_rfa_0p8>;
> + vddrfa1-supply = <&vreg_pmu_rfa_1p2>;
> + vddrfa2-supply = <&vreg_pmu_rfa_1p7>;
> + vddpcie0-supply = <&vreg_pmu_pcie_0p9>;
> + vddpcie1-supply = <&vreg_pmu_pcie_1p8>;
> + };
> +};
Regards,
Bjorn
