Re: [PATCH 3/7] regulator: qcom-rpmh: Correct the pmic5_hfsmps515 buck

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 09:45:41AM +0530, skakit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2021-03-02 19:51, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

> > I'd still prefer to have two different regulator types (as we did for
> > pm8009 P=0 and P=1 variants). However it's probably up to the
> > maintainers to decide.

> As Mark already picked this, I think we can leave it this way.

As far as I can tell this is a system configuration issue, the board
constraints will ensure that we don't try to set a voltage that the
system can't support so there should be no need for this to be handled
as separate variants.  That assumes that this P register field just
extends the values available, it doesn't have to be tied to some board
setup or anything.  If it is a board configuration thing it probably
makes more sense to add a boolean property for it, ideally something
tied to whatever the board configuration is so that it's easier for
people to discover.

I had understood the pm8009 case as being two different parts with the
same name rather than two different options for the same part.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature