Hi, On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On 09/01/2015 16:46, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 09-01-15 11:39, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >>> It is now possible to use a regulator property for each port of the >>> AHCI controller. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-platform.txt | 9 ++++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-platform.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-platform.txt >>> index 4ab09f2202d4..87416d71c758 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-platform.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/ahci-platform.txt >>> @@ -37,9 +37,10 @@ Required properties when using sub-nodes: >>> >>> >>> Sub-nodes required properties: >>> -- reg : the port number >>> -- phys : reference to the SATA PHY node >>> - >>> +- reg : the port number >>> +And at least one of the following properties: >>> +- phys : reference to the SATA PHY node >>> +- target-port<n>-supply : regulator for SATA target power for port <n> >>> >>> Examples: >>> sata@ffe08000 { >>> @@ -68,10 +69,12 @@ With sub-nodes: >>> sata0: sata-port@0 { >>> reg = <0>; >>> phys = <&sata_phy 0>; >>> + target-port0-supply = <®_sata0>; >>> }; >>> >> >> I'm sorry, but I've to NAK this, I did not follow the regulator discussion., >> thinking that it was just about the use of some utility function vs diy or >> some such, I had no idea this would impact the dt-binding. >> >> The -port%d- bit is completely unnecessary from a dt pov. Devicetree is >> supposed to be OS agnostic, we cannot make the dt-binding ugly just because >> the regulator subsys in Linux does not provide the necessary functionality. >> >> I'm afraid you will have to get back to the regulator subsys people and tell >> them that we really need an of_regulator_get, so that we can tell the >> regulator subsys we want a regulator from a specific of_node. > > I didn't cc you especially, but I cc the linux-ide mailing list. The > email was "[PATCH 2/2] regulator: core: Add the device tree version to > the regulator_get family" (see > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1856154). > > Mark Brown didn't want a firmware specific interface. The regulator > framework allows associating only a regulator to a device and > currently, at least from the point of view of the device tree, the > port subnodes are not devices. He suggested making the child node > device. However, when I had a look on it, it didn't seem an easy > task. As you know better this code, what do you think of it? > > (I added Mark Bronw in CC of this email so he can add more explanation > if needed) Since the AHCI library code already supports the generic phy subsystem, with one phy possible for each port node, you could possibly add a generic phy that just takes a regulator, and hook it up that way. I don't know if the extra layer of indirection is good or not. Just offering an alternative. Regards, ChenYu >> >> Please CC me when you re-open the discussion with the regulator people. >> >> Regards, >> >> Hans >> > > > -- > Gregory Clement, Free Electrons > Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux > development, consulting, training and support. > http://free-electrons.com > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html