RE: [PATCH] ARM: dts: add dtsi for palmas

[J, KEERTHY]

Hi Benoit,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cousson, Benoit
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:00 PM
> To: J, KEERTHY
> Cc: Stephen Warren; devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx; swarren@xxxxxxxxxx;
> sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: add dtsi for palmas
> 
> Hi Keerthy,
> 
> On 06/10/2013 06:03 AM, J, KEERTHY wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Thanks for the review comments.
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Stephen Warren [swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 1:26 AM
> > To: J, KEERTHY
> > Cc: Cousson, Benoit; devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx; swarren@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: add dtsi for palmas
> >
> > On 06/07/2013 05:28 AM, J Keerthy wrote:
> >> Adds palmas mfd and palmas regulator nodes. This is based on the
> >> patch series:
> >>
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg89957.html
> >>
> >> The device tree nodes are based on:
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/6/25
> >
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/palmas.dtsi
> >> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/palmas.dtsi
> >
> >> +&palmas {
> >
> > Hmmm. That (i.e. requiring the board file to declare the node, then
> > setting up all the content by later including this file) is an
> > interesting approach. I guess it's reasonable. The one issue is that
> > it makes it a little harder for the board file to override any of the
> > properties in this file., although it certainly is possible by
> > including those overrides after the include.
> >
> > Irrespective of that, some comments on this:
> >
> >> +     palmas_pmic {
> >
> >> +             ti,ldo6-vibrator;
> >
> > For example, what if the board doesn't want to have the property set?
> >
> >> +
> >> +             regulators {
> >> +                     smps123_reg: smps123 {
> >> +                             regulator-name = "smps123";
> >> +                             regulator-min-microvolt = < 600000>;
> >> +                             regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
> >
> > Or what if the board wants to limit the voltage range of this
> > regulator due to what it's used for on the board.
> >
> >> +                             regulator-always-on;
> >> +                             regulator-boot-on;
> >
> > And those two properties are almost certainly board-specific policy.
> >
> > Totally agree to all the above concerns. So can we have a custom
> .dtsi
> > file for a board+pmic combination? Or have only the required
> > properties over ridden in the board file?
> 
> Yes, you can do that potentially if most OMAP5 boards will reuse the
> same kind of settings. Kevin has just done that for OMAP3 + twl4030.
> 
> In this case, since we do have only one board, I'm not sure it worth
> the effort.

I sent a V2 with only the most generic property in palmas.dtsi and the
Configurable parameter under the board file. Let me know if that patch set
Is fine.


> 
> Regards,
> Benoit

Regards,
Keerthy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/