Am 03.05.24 um 15:24 schrieb Rob Herring: > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 05:35:44PM +0000, Josua Mayer wrote: >> Am 02.05.24 um 14:32 schrieb Josua Mayer: >>> Add description for the SolidRun CN9131 SolidWAN, based on CN9130 SoM >>> with an extra communication processor on the carrier board. >>> >>> This board differentiates itself from CN9130 Clearfog by providing >>> additional SoC native network interfaces and pci buses: >>> 2x 10Gbps SFP+ >>> 4x 1Gbps RJ45 >>> 1x miniPCI-E >>> 1x m.2 b-key with sata, usb-2.0 and usb-3.0 >>> 1x m.2 m-key with pcie and usb-2.0 >>> 1x m.2 b-key with pcie, usb-2.0, usb-3.0 and 2x sim slots >>> 1x mpcie with pcie only >>> 2x type-a usb-2.0/3.0 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/Makefile | 1 + >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/cn9131-cf-solidwan.dts | 643 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 644 insertions(+) >>> >> cut >>> + /* Type-A port on J53 */ >>> + reg_usb_a_vbus0: regulator-usb-a-vbus0 { >>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&cp0_reg_usb_a_vbus0_pins>; >>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>> + regulator-name = "vbus0"; >>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>; >>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>; >>> + regulator-oc-protection-microamp = <1000000>; >> Is it correct to specify over-current protection for a >> regulator-fixed? It causes kernel messages: >> >> [ 7.988337] vbus0: IC does not support requested over-current limits >> [ 7.994756] vbus0: IC does not support requested over voltage limits >> [ 7.998796] vbus1: IC does not support requested over-current limits >> ... > Seems like you have your answer... Okay, I will remove those for v5. > >> The reason I put the property was that the 1A limit is a property of >> the regulator component (NCP380-1.0A). Maybe that is the wrong property? >> >> It also generates an interrupt for which I found no suitable description. > Then you should describe the actual device because it is not just a > regulator-fixed. I suppose we could consider adding an interrupt to > regulator-fixed, but then its function can only be for (presumably) > over-current. Even details on how to handle it could vary as well. Beyond signaling to userspace I see no actions that can be taken. The part operates autonomously, including turning off the output temporarily, and merely signals any errors (e.g. over-current, over-heating) on the interrupt line. I would actually prefer to stick with fixed-regulator. The interrupt could be very broad, for any regulator fault. But I could also just omit it.