Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] dt-bindings: regulator: Add pm8008 regulator bindings

[Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)]

On 12/6/2021 7:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 07:13:02PM +0530, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
> > On 11/25/2021 8:54 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 03:12:29PM +0530, Satya Priya wrote:
> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    const: qcom,pm8008-regulators
> > > Why are we adding a separate compatible for this when we already know
> > > that this is a pm8008 based on the parent?
> > For the regulator driver to be probed we do need a separate compatible
> > right? may be I didn't get your question..
> > My understanding is we should have a separate compatible for each peripheral
> > under the parent mfd node.. like gpios, temp alarm, regulators etc..
> No, the MFD can register whatever children it likes without needing any
> help from the DT.

I think this is possible by using of_platform_bus_probe() API. But, the 
mfd driver uses of_platform_populate() API, this needs all device nodes 
to have a 'compatible' property unlike the of_platform_bus_probe() API.

All other MFD upstream drivers are also using the same API and 
registering the child regulators by using separate compatible strings.


> > > > +  vdd_l1_l2-supply:
> > > > +    description: Input supply phandle of ldo1 and ldo2 regulators.
> > > These supply nodes should be chip level, they're going into the chip and
> > > in general the expectation is that you should be able to describe the
> > > supplies going into a device without worrying about how or if any
> > > particular OS splits things up.
> > So, if i understand correctly, we don't have to mention these in the
> > documentation as these are handled at framework level?
> No.  I'm saying you should document these at the chip level, they do
> need to be documented though.

By chip level do you mean "pm8008.yaml" documentation? If so, yes, I can 
move these to pm8008.yaml and change DT accordingly.