Re: [PATCH net-next v2 8/8] net: pse-pd: Add PD692x0 PSE controller driver

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 05:10:00PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 04:36:10PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote:
> > > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  

> > > > OK...  I mean, if they're not using the regulator framework I'm not sure
> > > > it has much impact - there are plenty of internal regulators in devices
> > > > already so it wouldn't be *too* unusual other than the fact that AFAICT
> > > > this is somewhat split between devices within the subsystem?  Neither of
> > > > the messages was super clear.  

> > > PSE Power Interface (which is kind of the RJ45 in PSE world) have similar
> > > functionalities as regulators. We wondered if registering a regulator for
> > > each PSE PI (RJ45 ports) is a good idea. The point is that the PSE
> > > controller driver will be its own regulator consumer.
> > > I can't find any example in Linux with such a case of a driver being a
> > > provider and a consumer of its own regulator. This idea of a regulator
> > > biting its own tail seems weird to me. Maybe it is better to implement the
> > > PSE functionalities even if they are like the regulator functionalities.  

> > Is it at all plausible that a system (perhaps an embedded one) might use
> > something other than PSE?

> Do you mean to supply power to a RJ45 port?

Whatever it is that PSE does.

> This can be done with a simple regulator. In that case we use the pse_regulator
> driver which is a regulator consumer.
> I don't know about other cases. Oleksij do you?

In that case it sounds like you need the split to allow people to
substitute in a non-PSE supply, and everything ought to be doing the
consumer thing?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature