On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 05:10:00PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 04:36:10PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote: > > > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Is it at all plausible that a system (perhaps an embedded one) might use > > something other than PSE? > Do you mean to supply power to a RJ45 port? Whatever it is that PSE does. > This can be done with a simple regulator. In that case we use the pse_regulator > driver which is a regulator consumer. > I don't know about other cases. Oleksij do you? In that case it sounds like you need the split to allow people to substitute in a non-PSE supply, and everything ought to be doing the consumer thing?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
