On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 20:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2022 19:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 08:46:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 02/10/2022 15:46, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>> + enum:
> >>>>> + - ssbi
> >>>>> + - ssbi2
> >>>>> + - pmic-arbiter
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + pmic:
> >>>>> + type: object
> >>>>
> >>>> This is quite unspecific... Can we make it a ref to some PMICs schemas?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I thought about listing all compats, but probably a $ref:
> >>> ../mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml# makes more sense.
> >>
> >> Then full path - /schemas/mfd/qcom-....
> >
> > While effectively it's always a QCom PMIC, this is a bus binding, so
> > shouldn't it just be 'additionalProperties: { type: object }' without
> > any reference to the type of device?
>
> If we treat it as generic bus, then maybe also "pmic" is not
> appropriate. What if other devices are connected?
It's a 1:1 bus, so SSBI host can be connected to a single IC. This bus
is not used in new designs (it got replaced with SPMI). All existing
devices use SSBI to connect to PMIC. So I think it is safe to assume
that the only ssbi child is a PMIC.
>
> Bindings were saying it is Qualcomm SoC specific bus, so I don't think
> we can have here anything else than Qualcomm PMIC.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
