On 6.07.2022 15:19, Christian Marangi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 03:31:55PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> >> >> On 6.07.2022 14:56, Christian Marangi wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5.07.2022 15:39, Christian Marangi wrote: >>>>> Mikrotik RB3011 have a special configuration where the regulators are >>>>> not the common smb208 controlled by RPM but they use a TPS563900 >>>>> controlled via i2c. Disable the smb208 for this specific device. >>>> Ok, so that answers my question from the previous email. >>>> Please define the SMB208 regulators only in the DTs of >>>> boards that actually use it, as it is not a SoC component as >>>> far as I can tell. >>>> >>>> Konrad >>> >>> This was already discuessed, >> Yeah sorry, I didn't notice earlier and started reviewing patches >> that were already reviewed by others. >> > > Np, thanks for the review. > >> >> rb3011 is the exception, qcom for ipq8064 >>> recommends to use smb208 but gives the option to implement it in their >>> own way. So again we have 28 device with smb208 and 1 device that use >>> its own special way... >>> >>> Wonder if a separate dtsi can be used for this if we really can't put >>> smb208 in ipq8064 dtsi? >> There's msm8916-pm8916.dtsi. You can follow. > > Ok, will put the smb208 definition to a separate dtsi, something like > ipq8064-smb208.dtsi? or ipq8064-rpm-smb208.dtsi? Looks also cleaner that > way. You can create ipq8064-smb208.dtsi that will also contain every ipq8064-plus-smb208-specific configuration, such as regulator assignemnts to in-SoC components (like PHYs, SDHCIs etc.). Konrad > >> >> Konrad >> >> [...] >
