On Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 11:04:50AM GMT, Kumar, Udit wrote:
> Thanks for your patch Andrew
>
>
> On 9/7/2024 2:51 AM, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> > In order for the MCU domain to access this PMIC and its children in
> > u-boot SPL, the nodes need to be marked appropriately otherwise they
> > are not seen by SPL.
> >
> > This is necessary if the MCU domain is to program the TPS6594 MCU ESM
> > state machine, which is required to wire up the watchdog in a manner
> > that will reset the board.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts | 11 +++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
> > index 6695ebbcb4d0..044a428136df 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts
> > @@ -642,6 +642,7 @@ eeprom@50 {
> > };
> > tps659413: pmic@48 {
> > + bootph-all;
> > compatible = "ti,tps6594-q1";
> > reg = <0x48>;
> > system-power-controller;
> > @@ -662,7 +663,10 @@ tps659413: pmic@48 {
> > ldo4-supply = <&vsys_3v3>;
> > regulators {
> > + bootph-all;
> > +
> > bucka12: buck12 {
> > + bootph-all;
>
>
> Add bootph in on regulator node should be enough,
>
> As I see SPL/u-boot does not need all nodes.
Ahhh, I finally see now, all parents of a bootph-* node get that
property. Makes sense.
Would you rather see it in the regulators node, or all of the actual
regulators (bucka12, buacka3... etc)?
The former is all that's *needed* to get the PMIC ESM probing and
programmed. The latter makes sense to me if we want to actual use the
regulators in the future in that context... Doing just *one* of the
regulators seems odd to me though, someone may want a different one,
so if we describe one to SPL we may as well describe all.
What are your thoughts?
