Hi Heiko,
On 2016/7/21 17:26, Heiko St?bner wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2016, 10:49:53 schrieb Frank Wang:
>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,15 @@
>>>>
>>>> regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>>>
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> + vbus_host: vbus-host-regulator {
>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>>>> + enable-active-high;
>>>> + gpio = <&gpio4 25 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&host_vbus_drv>;
>>>> + regulator-name = "vbus_host";
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>> To match my schematics, this would probably be "vcc5v0_host".
>>> Technically there are two regulators but since they are the same
>>> voltage and enabled by the same GPIO it seems like modeling it as one
>>> regulator is fine.
>> Yep, you are right, I will rename it.
>>
>>> If you really wanted to model things you could also include the input
>>> supply (VCC5V0_SYS). Not sure how much you care to model in EVB.
>> Actually, from
>> "Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/fixed-regulator.txt" show,
>> input supply name is just optional property, and it seems that only do
>> assign "vin" value for input_supply (the second member of struct
>> fixed_voltage_config) if "vin-supply" is specified.
>>
>> So is input supply name (VCC5V0_SYS) required here? Would you like to
>> give more comments please?
> While vin-supply is optional, I think that is meant for real top-level
> regulators (our vcc_sys or whatever) that really don't have a parent
> regulator.
>
> It is always nicer to model the whole power-tree [in a sane way], as it makes
> following the schematics a lot easier. If you mount a debugfs these days you
> can even get a nice tree graph of the regulator infrastructure ... where the
> parent-relationship is also needed to create something meaningful.
>
Got it, many thanks for your explanation, I will add vin-supply next
version.
BR.
Frank
> Heiko
>
>
>
