Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-05 Thread Mark Brown
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 12:26:58PM -, Simon Arlott wrote: > On Fri, December 4, 2015 11:00, Mark Brown wrote: > > OK, so the power domains should be being represented and managed as such > > rather than using regulators - it's a better fit (doing things like > > support atomic context) and it

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-04 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:51:16PM +, Simon Arlott wrote: > On 03/12/15 23:45, Mark Brown wrote: > > Are you *sure* these are regulators and not power domains? These names > > look a lot like they could be power domains. > No, I'm not sure. Some of them are may actually be regulators (the

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-04 Thread Simon Arlott
On Fri, December 4, 2015 11:00, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:51:16PM +, Simon Arlott wrote: >> On 03/12/15 23:45, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > Are you *sure* these are regulators and not power domains? These names >> > look a lot like they could be power domains. > >> No, I'm

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-03 Thread Simon Arlott
On 03/12/15 00:06, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:26:36PM +, Simon Arlott wrote: >> On 02/12/15 12:53, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > This is the sort of thing you can pick up from the SoC compatible >> > strings. As things stand there is zero content in this driver that >> >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-03 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:14:33AM +, Simon Arlott wrote: > On 03/12/15 00:06, Mark Brown wrote: > > this it should know at least something about how to control the device > > from the compatible string. If you're making a generic driver it should > > not make reference to specific devices.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-03 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:38:28PM +, Simon Arlott wrote: > #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_GMAC (1<<18) > #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_WLAN_PADS(1<<13) > #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_PCIE (1<<12) > #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_FAP (1<<11) > #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_VDSL_MIPS(1<<10) >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-03 Thread Simon Arlott
On 03/12/15 23:45, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:38:28PM +, Simon Arlott wrote: > >> #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_GMAC (1<<18) >> #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_WLAN_PADS(1<<13) >> #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_PCIE (1<<12) >> #define MISC_IDDQ_CTRL_FAP (1<<11) >>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-03 Thread Simon Arlott
On 03/12/15 15:05, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:14:33AM +, Simon Arlott wrote: >> On 03/12/15 00:06, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > this it should know at least something about how to control the device >> > from the compatible string. If you're making a generic driver it should

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-02 Thread Simon Arlott
On 02/12/15 12:53, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:45:50PM -, Simon Arlott wrote: >> On Tue, December 1, 2015 22:16, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > Why are these in the DT, I would expect that if this is a driver for a >> > specific SoC all these properties would be known as a result

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-02 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:26:36PM +, Simon Arlott wrote: > On 02/12/15 12:53, Mark Brown wrote: > > This is the sort of thing you can pick up from the SoC compatible > > strings. As things stand there is zero content in this driver that > > relates to this SoC. > There's always going to be

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-02 Thread Simon Arlott
On Tue, December 1, 2015 22:16, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 08:30:07PM +, Simon Arlott wrote: > >> +- offset: register offset >> +- mask: register enable mask >> +- startup-delay-us: startup time in microseconds > > Why are these in the DT, I would expect that if this is a

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-02 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:45:50PM -, Simon Arlott wrote: > On Tue, December 1, 2015 22:16, Mark Brown wrote: > > Why are these in the DT, I would expect that if this is a driver for a > > specific SoC all these properties would be known as a result of that. > This is a driver for multiple

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-12-01 Thread Mark Brown
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 08:30:07PM +, Simon Arlott wrote: > +- offset: register offset > +- mask: register enable mask > +- startup-delay-us: startup time in microseconds Why are these in the DT, I would expect that if this is a driver for a specific SoC all these properties would be known

[PATCH 1/2] regulator: Add brcm,bcm63xx-regulator device tree binding

2015-11-30 Thread Simon Arlott
The BCM63xx has one or more registers with bits that act as regulators to enable/disable power to individual chip peripherals. Signed-off-by: Simon Arlott --- .../bindings/regulator/brcm,bcm63xx-regulator.txt | 33 ++ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)