On Monday, June 23rd, 2025 at 12:11, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dyb...@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/25 9:31 PM, cristian_ci wrote: > > > On Saturday, June 21st, 2025 at 12:17, Konrad Dybcio > > konrad.dyb...@oss.qualcomm.com wrote: > > > > > > + > > > > +&sdhc_1 { > > > > + vmmc-supply = <&pm8953_l8>; > > > > + vqmmc-supply = <&pm8953_l5>; > > > > > > you should add regulator-allow-set-load to these vregs > > > > So, do you mean I should add 'regulator-allow-set-load' property to > > 'pm8953_l5' and 'pm8953_l8' regulators? If so, should I do that for > > 'pm8953_l11' and 'pm8953_l12' regulators too (sdhc_2)? > > > Yes > ACK, I'll do that in v2. BTW, since I've not such references in my downstream devicetree, IIUC what you mean, 'regulator-allow-set-load' property is now required in mainline for regulators supplying sdhc_{1|2}. Also considering I've transferred every value _as_is_ (except for max and min microvolt values of one regulator - after the kernel log complained about that) for regulators/rpm_requests from downstream devicetree to mainline devicetree, since other msm8953 devicetrees seem to share the same situation of 'rimob' (I'm referring to 'potter', 'daisy', 'mido', 'tissot' and 'vince'), I wonder if it's not the case to standardize all these devicetrees in the same way. Any thoughts?