On 28/02/2025 10:51, David Jander wrote: >>>> >>>> Second sentence is both redundant and really not relevant to this >>>> binding. It's not this binding which decides about sharing. >>> >>> Good point. I think I should drop the whole property, since it is indeed >>> irrelevant. If extra supplies need to be specified, they always can be, right? >> >> You should specify all supplies now, because hardware should be fully >> described by binding and DTS. > > In the case of the hardware I use for testing all of this, there are several > tmc5240 chips which have their "SLEEPN" pin tied together controlled by a > single GPIO pin that needs to be pulled high before any of these chips can be > talked to. The usual way I know of solving this is by specifying a common > "virtual" supply of type "regulator-fixed" with an enable gpio. No, that is not usual way. Representing pin as fake supply is hack and not correct hardware description. > But this isn't strictly a supply that has to do with this chip or driver, so I > don't think it should be specified in the schema. I do need to use it in my > particular case though. Is there a better way of doing this? I speak about voltage and current supplies. These you must specify. > >> What's more, the necessary supplies (according to datasheet) should be >> required, not optional. > > Do you mean that they should be in the binding definition as well? I.e. add > all of Vs, Vdd1v8 and Vcc_io here? Yes, all expected supplies must be in the binding. Best regards, Krzysztof
