On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 15:57:28 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 03:02:03PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 12:55:18PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 07:45:27AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > > > > CC regulator devs here too. > > > > Again, I'm not sure what if any question there is? > > > PSE is kind of PMIC for Ethernet ports. I assume, it is good to let you > > know at least about existence drivers. > > OK... I mean, if they're not using the regulator framework I'm not sure > it has much impact - there are plenty of internal regulators in devices > already so it wouldn't be *too* unusual other than the fact that AFAICT > this is somewhat split between devices within the subsystem? Neither of > the messages was super clear. PSE Power Interface (which is kind of the RJ45 in PSE world) have similar functionalities as regulators. We wondered if registering a regulator for each PSE PI (RJ45 ports) is a good idea. The point is that the PSE controller driver will be its own regulator consumer. I can't find any example in Linux with such a case of a driver being a provider and a consumer of its own regulator. This idea of a regulator biting its own tail seems weird to me. Maybe it is better to implement the PSE functionalities even if they are like the regulator functionalities. What do you think? Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
