On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 09:45:41AM +0530, skakit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 2021-03-02 19:51, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > I'd still prefer to have two different regulator types (as we did for > > pm8009 P=0 and P=1 variants). However it's probably up to the > > maintainers to decide. > As Mark already picked this, I think we can leave it this way. As far as I can tell this is a system configuration issue, the board constraints will ensure that we don't try to set a voltage that the system can't support so there should be no need for this to be handled as separate variants. That assumes that this P register field just extends the values available, it doesn't have to be tied to some board setup or anything. If it is a board configuration thing it probably makes more sense to add a boolean property for it, ideally something tied to whatever the board configuration is so that it's easier for people to discover. I had understood the pm8009 case as being two different parts with the same name rather than two different options for the same part.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
