Il 17/04/24 21:12, Rob Herring ha scritto:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 05:39:12PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 17/04/24 16:52, Rob Herring ha scritto:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:14:36AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
The Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling Resource Collector Regulators
are controlled with votes to the DVFSRC hardware.
This adds support for the regulators found in MT6873, MT8183, MT8192
and MT8195 SoCs.
Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../mediatek,mt6873-dvfsrc-regulator.yaml | 71 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mediatek,mt6873-dvfsrc-regulator.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mediatek,mt6873-dvfsrc-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mediatek,mt6873-dvfsrc-regulator.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..446f1dab4d2e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/mediatek,mt6873-dvfsrc-regulator.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/regulator/mediatek,mt6873-dvfsrc-regulator.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: MediaTek DVFSRC-controlled Regulators
+
+description:
+ The Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling Resource Collector Regulators
+ are controlled with votes to the DVFSRC hardware.
+
+maintainers:
+ - AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - mediatek,mt6873-dvfsrc-regulator
+ - mediatek,mt8183-dvfsrc-regulator
+ - mediatek,mt8192-dvfsrc-regulator
+ - mediatek,mt8195-dvfsrc-regulator
+
+ reg:
+ maxItems: 1
+
+ dvfsrc-vcore:
+ description: DVFSRC-controlled SoC Vcore regulator
+ $ref: regulator.yaml#
unevaluatedProperties: false
Will do!
+
+ dvfsrc-vscp:
+ description: DVFSRC-controlled System Control Processor regulator
+ $ref: regulator.yaml#
ditto
+
+required:
+ - compatible
'reg' is never optional. And how is no regulators at all valid?
The two nodes that I'm adding with this series don't need reg, but others
that are not present in this do... but anyway, let's postpone that problem
for the future me, or the future-anyone-else implementing the rest, I will
remove the 'reg' property as it is indeed not needed for this node.
That might have been fine, but now that I know you *will* need it, it
isn't fine. You could wait 1 week to 6 months to repost and hope I
forget...
My bad, I should've explained a bit better, that was referred to the DVFSRC
main node, not to the REGULATOR node: that one doesn't need it at all.
I get it as it's fine if I drop reg from all of them (here and icc, and the
size/address cells from the parent node) and send a v3.
Did I get that wrong?
The ideal for these cases is you put the actual sub-range of
MMIO registers in the child nodes. But sometimes it is just bit soup in
the register layout and that doesn't work.
I can confirm that there's a bit soup situation on MediaTek - bits for different
devices scattered all around in one register "far away".
And yeah it's invalid to add that node without any regulator. Will check the
other regulator bindings on how they're doing it.
'required' or anyOf with a list of required entries.
That saves me lookup time - greatly appreciated, thank you!
Cheers,
Angelo
Rob
