On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 3:11 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 3:07 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Alright, so let's imagine we do model the PMU on the device tree. It would
> > > look something like this:
> > >
> > > qca6390_pmu: pmic@0 {
> > > compatible = "qcom,qca6390-pmu";
> > >
> > > bt-gpios = <...>;
> > > wlan-gpios = <...>;
> > >
> > > vdd-supply = <&vreg...>;
> > > ...
> > >
> > > regulators-0 {
> > > vreg_x: foo {
> > > ...
> > > };
> > >
> > > ...
> > > };
> > > };
> > >
> > > Then the WLAN and BT consume the regulators from &qca6390_pmu. Obviously we
> > > cannot go:
> > >
> > > wlan {
> > > pwrseq = &qca6390_pmu;
> > > };
> > >
> > > But it's enough to:
> > >
> > > wlan {
> > > vdd-supply = <&vreg_x>;
> > > };
> >
> > I'm not sure this will fly. This means expecting that regulator
> > framework is reentrant, which I think is not the case.
> >
>
> Oh maybe I didn't make myself clear. That's the DT representation of
> HW. With pwrseq, the BT or ATH11K drivers wouldn't use the regulator
> framework. They would use the pwrseq framework and it could use the
> phandle of the regulator to get into the correct pwrseq device without
> making Rob and Krzysztof angry.
>
> Bart
>
> [snip]
I'm working on a PoC of the generic pwrseq framework but without the
explicit pwrseq modelling in DT. Should have an RFC ready early next
week.
Bart
