Hi Biju, On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:49 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Prabhakar, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] mmc: renesas_sdhi: Add support for RZ/V2H(P) SoC > > > > Hi Biju, > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:30 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Wolfram, Prabhakar, > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 8:40 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] mmc: renesas_sdhi: Add support for > > > > RZ/V2H(P) SoC > > > > > > > > Hi Prabhakar, > > > > > > > > > I did give it a try with platform_driver_probe() and failed. > > > > > > > > Ok, thanks for trying nonetheless! > > > > > > > > > - Firstly I had to move the regulator node outside the SDHI node > > > > > for > > > > > platform_driver_probe() to succeed or else it failed with -ENODEV > > > > > (at > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/base/platfo > > > > > rm.c > > > > > #L953) > > > > > > > > This makes sense to me because it is just a "regular" regulator. > > > > > > > > > - In Renesas SoCs we have multiple instances of SDHI, the problem > > > > > being for each instance we are calling platform_driver_probe(). > > > > > Which causes a problem as the regulator node will use the first device. > > > > > > > > I see... we would need a reg property to differentiate between the > > > > internal regulators but that is already used by the parent SDHI node. > > > > > > > > Okay, so let's scrap that idea. However, we need to ensure that we > > > > can still have an external regulator. Seeing the bindings, it looks > > > > like you enable the internal regulator with the "vqmmc- r9a09g057-regulator" > > > > property? I wonder now if we can simplify this to an > > > > "use-internal-regulator" property because we have 'compatible' already to differentiate? Needs > > advice from DT maintainers, probably. > > > > > > Why this cannot be modelled as a regular "regulator" as a child device of SDHI device? > > > > > The current implementation does implement the regulator as a child device of the sdhi node [0] > > itself. > > > > Wolfram was suggesting to have the regulator outside and use platform_driver_probe(), which caused > > an issue as mentioned above. > > You, mean standalone node with a device compatible for each SDHI device nodes(Assuming 3 sdhi devices)? > Yep. > 3 SDHI devices nodes(stand alone) + 3 regulator device nodes (stand alone) ? > This one (since as per the HW we have three SDHI instances and 3 internal regulators) so we need to describe the same in DT. Cheers, Prabhakar
