On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 08:29:18AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:24:34AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > From here:
>
> > > > > > > + pm8941-regulators {
> > > > > > > + compatible = "qcom,rpm-pm8941-regulators";
> > > > > > > + vdd_l13_l20_l23_l24-supply = <&pm8941_boost>;
>
> > > > > > I'd like Mark to glance at this.
>
> > Mark: Is this new property okay?
>
> As far as I can see that looks like a standard supply property, assuming
> the supply is actually called that why would it be an issue?
>
> > > The specified range of the regulator is 1.75-1.85V and this is handled
> > > by the implementation, however the board designers have stated that it
> > > is only allowed to be configured to 1.8V.
>
> > > So DT is used to narrow the capabilities of the individual component to
> > > something that's suitable for this particular system.
>
> > > > We still need Mark to look at this.
>
> > Is it okay for the regulator-{min,max}-microvolt to be artificially
> > restricted to the required value, despite knowing that the regulator
> > is capable of supply {more,less} voltage?
>
> Yes, that's the entire purpose of those properties - to set the limits
> the board designers have which will typically be more restrictive than
> those that the regulator itself is capable of imposing.
All fine then.
Please re-submit with the changes we discussed.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
