Hi Prabhakar,
> Based on the feedback from Rob I have now changed it to below, i.e.
> the regulator now probes based on regulator-compatible property value
> "vqmmc-r9a09g057-regulator" instead of regulator node name as the
> driver has of_match in regulator_desc.
I like this a lot! One minor comment.
> static struct regulator_desc r9a09g057_vqmmc_regulator = {
> .of_match = of_match_ptr("vqmmc-r9a09g057-regulator"),
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> .type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE,
> .ops = &r9a09g057_regulator_voltage_ops,
> .volt_table = r9a09g057_vqmmc_voltages,
> .n_voltages = ARRAY_SIZE(r9a09g057_vqmmc_voltages),
> };
>
> SoC DTSI:
> sdhi1: mmc@15c10000 {
> compatible = "renesas,sdhi-r9a09g057";
> reg = <0x0 0x15c10000 0 0x10000>;
> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 737 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> <GIC_SPI 738 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 167>,
> <&cpg CPG_MOD 169>,
> <&cpg CPG_MOD 168>,
> <&cpg CPG_MOD 170>;
> clock-names = "core", "clkh", "cd", "aclk";
> resets = <&cpg 168>;
> power-domains = <&cpg>;
> status = "disabled";
>
> vqmmc_sdhi1: vqmmc-regulator {
> regulator-compatible = "vqmmc-r9a09g057-regulator";
> regulator-name = "vqmmc-regulator";
This should have "sdhi<X>" somewhere in the name?
> regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
> regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
> status = "disabled";
> };
> };
>
> Board DTS:
>
> &sdhi1 {
> pinctrl-0 = <&sdhi1_pins>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&sdhi1_pins>;
> pinctrl-names = "default", "state_uhs";
> vmmc-supply = <®_3p3v>;
> vqmmc-supply = <&vqmmc_sdhi1>;
> bus-width = <4>;
> sd-uhs-sdr50;
> sd-uhs-sdr104;
> status = "okay";
> };
>
> &vqmmc_sdhi1 {
> status = "okay";
> };
Again, I like this. It looks like proper HW description to me.
> Based on the feedback provided Geert ie to use set_pwr callback to set
> PWEN bit and handle IOVS bit in voltage switch callback by dropping
> the regulator altogether. In this case we will have to introduce just
> a single "use-internal-regulator" property and if set make the vqmmc
> regulator optional?
Let's discuss with Geert. But I am quite convinced of your approach
above.
> > > Let me know if I have missed something obvious here.
> >
> > Nope, all good.
Don't give up, I think we are close...
All the best,
Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
