Quoting Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) (2022-02-28 06:14:56) > > On 2/19/2022 7:09 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Satya Priya (2022-02-18 03:00:59) > >> Add regulators and their supply nodes. Add separate compatible > >> "qcom,pm8008-regulators" to differentiate between pm8008 infra > >> and pm8008 regulators mfd devices. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya <quic_c_skakit@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > Is the register layout compatible with SPMI regulators? The gpio node > > seems to be fully compatible and the same driver probes there for SPMI > > and i2c, so I wonder why we can't extend the existing SPMI gpio and > > regulator bindings to have the new compatible strings for pm8008. Is > > anything really different, or do we have the same device talking i2c > > instead of SPMI now? Possibly it's exposing the different hardware > > blocks inside the PMIC at different i2c addresses. It looks like the i2c > > address is 0x8 and then there's 16-bits of address space inside the i2c > > device to do things. 0x9 is the i2c address for the regulators and then > > each ldo is at some offset in there? > > > The register layout is not compatible with spmi regulators, I see some > differences w.r.t VOLTAGE_CTL, EN_CTL, MODE_CTL registers. Also, there > is no headroom related stuff in the spmi driver. It sounds like minor differences and/or improvements to the existing SPMI regulator hardware. > >> interrupt-parent = <&tlmm>; > >> interrupts = <32 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; > > I still fail to see what this part of the diff has to do with > > regulators. Can it be split off to a different patch with a clear > > description of why interrupt-controller and #interrupt-cells is no > > longer required for qcom,pm8008? > > > This diff has nothing to do with regulators, I removed it to avoid yaml > errors during dtbs check. > > I'll move this to a separate patch. Ok, thanks!
