On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 05:36:36PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:43:16AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 06:29:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Rework the pm8008 binding by dropping internal details like register
> > > offsets and interrupts and by adding the missing regulator and
> > > temperature alarm properties.
> > >
> > > Note that child nodes are still used for pinctrl and regulator
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > Also note that the pinctrl state definition will be extended later and
> > > could eventually also be shared with other PMICs (e.g. by breaking out
> > > bits of qcom,pmic-gpio.yaml).
> >
> > Obviously we want to adapt this style of bindings for the other PMICs
> > too. My main concern here are PMICs which have two kinds of controlled
> > pins: GPIOs and MPPs. With the existing bindings style those are
> > declared as two subdevices. What would be your suggested way to support
> > MPPs with the proposed kind of bindings?
>
> As far as I understand newer PMICs do not have MPP blocks and we do not
> necessarily want to convert the existing bindings.
Well, I definitely want to do so.
> That said, if there is ever a need to describe two separate gpio blocks
> this can, for example, be done using subnodes on those PMICs.
This creates an asymmetry between older and newer PMICs. Wouldn't it be
better to always use gpios subnode for GPIO pins? This way older PMICS
will use the same approach _plus_ mpps {} subnode instead of having
either nothing or two subnodes.
The same approach probably applies to some other subdevices: temp-alarm
vs adc-tm, etc.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
