Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] arm64: dts: rockchip: Rename regulator for pcie2x1l2 for Radxa ROCK 5C

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/22/24 05:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 20/12/2024 07:51, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
Hi Krzysztof,

Could you please reply to this email?
(Not for me, but for everyone)

You have me how much time... 3 days to reply?

sorry.

Best regards,

--
FUKAUMI Naoki
Radxa Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

On 12/17/24 10:11, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
On 12/16/24 22:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 16/12/2024 12:30, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
Use consistent name with other regulators. No functional change.

Fixes: 3ddf5cdb77e6 ("arm64: dts: rockchip: add Radxa ROCK 5C")
Signed-off-by: FUKAUMI Naoki <naoki@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v5:
- Reword commit message
Changes in v4:
- reword commit message
Changes in v3:
- none
Changes in v2:
- new
---
   arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-rock-5c.dts | 6 +++---
   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-rock-5c.dts b/arch/
arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-rock-5c.dts
index 85589d1a6d3b..61d75ab503b2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-rock-5c.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-rock-5c.dts
@@ -76,13 +76,13 @@ pwm-fan {
           pwms = <&pwm3 0 60000 0>;
       };
-    pcie2x1l2_3v3: regulator-pcie2x1l2-3v3 {
+    vcc3v3_pcie2x1l2: regulator-vcc3v3_pcie2x1l2 {

No, neither explained, nor correct. See DTS coding style.

Please use name for all fixed regulators which matches current format
recommendation: 'regulator-[0-9]v[0-9]'

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/
tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/fixed-regulator.yaml?
h=v6.11-rc1#n46

'regulator-[0-9]v[0-9]' is preferred, but 'regulator-[0-9a-z-]+' is also
permitted, right?

i.e. regulator-vcc3v3_pcie2x1l2 should be regulator-vcc3v3-pcie2x1l2


Or, should we revert below patch and use 'regulator-[0-9]v[0-9]'?

   https://lore.kernel.org/
all/0ae40493-93e9-40cd-9ca9-990ae064f21a@xxxxxxxxx/

Is 'regulator-0v0' valid?

Why would it be valid? Can you have regulator with 0 volts?

There may be a .dtsi that is shared across multiple .dts, so some regulators may not be able to set a specific voltage in the .dtsi.

How should I describe it?

Is 'regulator-12v0' invalid?

Read the binding. I gave you very specific link.

46|       - description: Preferred name is 'regulator-[0-9]v[0-9]'
47|         pattern: '^regulator(-[0-9]+v[0-9]+|-[0-9a-z-]+)?$'

The "description" and "pattern" don't match. What you provided is a link to the "description".

How should we handle multiple 1v8/3v3/5v0 regulators?

Just add suffix. But usually more than one suffix, vcc+3v3+pcie_2x1l2,
means you created a very specific name.

So shouldn't we refer to the schematic?

Best regards,

--
FUKAUMI Naoki
Radxa Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

Best regards,
Krzysztof







[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux