Hi Geert,
Thank you for the review.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:57 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 5:33 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The SD/MMC block on the RZ/V2H(P) ("R9A09G057") SoC is similar to that
> > of the R-Car Gen3, but it has some differences:
> > - HS400 is not supported.
> > - It supports the SD_IOVS bit to control the IO voltage level.
> > - It supports fixed address mode.
> >
> > To accommodate these differences, a SoC-specific 'renesas,sdhi-r9a09g057'
> > compatible string is added.
> >
> > A 'vqmmc-regulator' object is introduced to handle the power enable (PWEN)
> > and voltage level switching for the SD/MMC.
> >
> > Additionally, the 'renesas,sdhi-use-internal-regulator' flag is introduced
> > to indicate that an internal regulator is used instead of a
> > GPIO-controlled regulator. This flag will help configure the internal
> > regulator and avoid special handling when GPIO is used for voltage
> > regulation instead of the SD_(IOVS/PWEN) pins.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2->v3
> > - Renamed vqmmc-r9a09g057-regulator object to vqmmc-regulator
> > - Added regulator-compatible property for vqmmc-regulator
> > - Added 'renesas,sdhi-use-internal-regulator' property
>
> Thanks for the update!
>
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/renesas,sdhi.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/renesas,sdhi.yaml
> > @@ -204,6 +207,31 @@ allOf:
> > sectioned off to be run by a separate second clock source to allow
> > the main core clock to be turned off to save power.
> >
> > + - if:
> > + properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + contains:
> > + const: renesas,sdhi-r9a09g057
> > + then:
> > + properties:
> > + renesas,sdhi-use-internal-regulator:
> > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
> > + description:
> > + Flag to indicate internal regulator is being used instead of GPIO regulator.
>
> Do you really need this?
For cases where the status is okay for the regulator but still the
user has phandle for the GPIO regulator or shall I drop this case?
> The status of the regulator subnode already indicates this.
You mean to use of_device_is_available() ?
>
> > +
> > + vqmmc-regulator:
> > + type: object
> > + description: VQMMC SD regulator
> > + $ref: /schemas/regulator/regulator.yaml#
> > + unevaluatedProperties: false
> > +
> > + properties:
> > + regulator-compatible:
> > + pattern: "^vqmmc-r9a09g057-regulator"
> > +
> > + required:
> > + - vqmmc-regulator
>
> I'm not 100% sure this works correctly: does the checker complain if
> a required subnode is disabled? Note that I haven't checked that.
>
Here is the experiment which I tried and the checker didnt complain,
&sdhi1 {
status = "okay";
};
&vqmmc_sdhi1 {
status = "disabled";
};
But the above is still a valid case where the user wants to use a GPIO
regulator?
Cheers,
Prabhakar
