On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 07:57:43AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 2/15/24 03:48, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:17:04PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I'm not gonna go and decree that "vout0" is unacceptable, if it was > > called that in documentation that I had missed or was convention, I was > > just gonna say "okay, that sounds reasonable to me". > > > > "convention" only if lack of awareness how regulators are supposed to be named > is a convention. They're "supposed" to be named whatever the binding says they are named, but as we've discovered none of these devices actually have bindings that allow regulators in the first place. I think they should be called whatever they're called in the documentation for the device, which in this case was "vout". > > > 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. > > > > I had a quick look at that series, none of the devices that I checked > > out there seem to have documented regulators at all. Some of the devices > > were only documented in trivial-devices.yaml. Relying on the naming of > > undocumented child nodes is a bug in those drivers & I guess nobody cares > > about dtbs_check complaints for those platforms. The example that was > > linked in the other thread doesn't even use a valid compatible :( > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-delta-ahe50dc.dts?id=8d3dea210042f54b952b481838c1e7dfc4ec751d#n21 > > I guess it uses the i2c device ids to probe on that platform, or have > > I missed something there? > > > > I think that is correct. If I recall correctly, the I2C subsystem no longer > searches for compatible drivers by only looking at the device id in the > compatible node, so I guess one has to list "lm25066" instead of "ti,lm25066" > as compatible to get a match in the i2c subsystem. That is of course > completely wrong. If the driver is probing based on i2c_device_id matching, is it correct to use DT to probe the regulators? (I don't know, that's not some sort of rhetorical question).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
