On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:35:38 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 28/02/2025 09:48, David Jander wrote: > > > > Dear Krzysztof, > > > > Thanks for reviewing... > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:11:04 +0100 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 05:28:22PM +0100, David Jander wrote: > >> [...] > >>> + > >>> + enable-supply: > >>> + description: Optional external enable supply to control SLEEPn pin. Can > >> > >> That's odd. regular pins are not supplies. This must be named after > >> physical supplies. There is vdd18, vcc, vcp but nothing about enable > >> supply in datasheet. > >> > >>> + be shared between several controllers. > >> > >> Second sentence is both redundant and really not relevant to this > >> binding. It's not this binding which decides about sharing. > > > > Good point. I think I should drop the whole property, since it is indeed > > irrelevant. If extra supplies need to be specified, they always can be, right? > > You should specify all supplies now, because hardware should be fully > described by binding and DTS. In the case of the hardware I use for testing all of this, there are several tmc5240 chips which have their "SLEEPN" pin tied together controlled by a single GPIO pin that needs to be pulled high before any of these chips can be talked to. The usual way I know of solving this is by specifying a common "virtual" supply of type "regulator-fixed" with an enable gpio. But this isn't strictly a supply that has to do with this chip or driver, so I don't think it should be specified in the schema. I do need to use it in my particular case though. Is there a better way of doing this? > What's more, the necessary supplies (according to datasheet) should be > required, not optional. Do you mean that they should be in the binding definition as well? I.e. add all of Vs, Vdd1v8 and Vcc_io here? Best regards, -- David Jander
