On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:31:42 -0500 Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > + > > > > + polarity-supported: > > > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string-array > > > > + description: > > > > + Polarity configuration supported by the PSE PI pairsets. > > > > + minItems: 1 > > > > + maxItems: 4 > > > > + items: > > > > + enum: > > > > + - MDI-X > > > > + - MDI > > > > + - X > > > > + - S > > > > + > > > > + vpwr-supply: > > > > + description: Regulator power supply for the PSE PI. > > > > > > I don't see this being used anywhere. > > > > Right, I forgot to add it to the PD692x0 and TPS23881 binding example! > > But is this really common/generic? I would think input power rails would > be chip specific. I think as each PSE PI are seen as a regulator we may want it generic to track each PI parent. Having the parent regulator described like that would force the devicetree to describe where the power come from. In contrary, for example, on the pd692x0 controller the regulators are connected to the managers (PD69208) and not directly to the PIs. So the devicetree would not really fit the hardware. It is indeed chip specific but having described like that would be more simple. If we decided to make it chip specific the core would have a callback to ask the driver to fill the regulator_init_data structure for each PI before registering the regulators. It is feasible. Mmh in fact I am still unsure about the solution. Oleksij as you were the first to push the idea. Have you more argument in mind to make it generic? https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZeObuKHkPN3tiWz_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
