On 2/14/24 11:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
[ ... ]
Why "vout0" if there's only one output? Is it called that in the
documentation? I had a quick check but only saw it called "vout".
Are there other related devices that would have multiple regulators
that might end up sharing the binding?
Primarily because that is what the PMBus core generates for the driver
because no one including me was aware that this is unacceptable
for single-output drivers.
Is it unacceptable? If you're implying that I am saying it is, that's
not what I was doing here - I'm just wondering why it was chosen.
Numbering when there's only one seems odd, so I was just looking for the
rationale.
Given the tendency of corporate speak (aka "this was a good attempt" for
a complete screwup), and since this did come up before, I did interpret
it along that line. My apologies if that was not the idea.
Still, I really don't know how to resolve this for existing PMBus drivers
which do register "vout0" even if there is only a single output regulator.
Guenter
