Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tda38640: Add interrupt & regulator properties

[Conor Dooley]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:17:04PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/14/24 11:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > > > Why "vout0" if there's only one output? Is it called that in the
> > > > documentation? I had a quick check but only saw it called "vout".
> > > > Are there other related devices that would have multiple regulators
> > > > that might end up sharing the binding?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Primarily because that is what the PMBus core generates for the driver
> > > because no one including me was aware that this is unacceptable
> > > for single-output drivers.
> > 
> > Is it unacceptable? If you're implying that I am saying it is, that's
> > not what I was doing here - I'm just wondering why it was chosen.
> > Numbering when there's only one seems odd, so I was just looking for the
> > rationale.
> > 
> 
> Given the tendency of corporate speak (aka "this was a good attempt" for
> a complete screwup), and since this did come up before, I did interpret
> it along that line. My apologies if that was not the idea.

I'm not gonna go and decree that "vout0" is unacceptable, if it was
called that in documentation that I had missed or was convention, I was
just gonna say "okay, that sounds reasonable to me".

> Still, I really don't know how to resolve this for existing PMBus drivers
> which do register "vout0" even if there is only a single output regulator.

I had a quick look at that series, none of the devices that I checked
out there seem to have documented regulators at all. Some of the devices
were only documented in trivial-devices.yaml. Relying on the naming of
undocumented child nodes is a bug in those drivers & I guess nobody cares
about dtbs_check complaints for those platforms. The example that was
linked in the other thread doesn't even use a valid compatible :(
	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-delta-ahe50dc.dts?id=8d3dea210042f54b952b481838c1e7dfc4ec751d#n21
I guess it uses the i2c device ids to probe on that platform, or have
I missed something there?

Cheers,
Conor.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature