On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Henry Chen wrote:
> +- regulator : The DVFSRC regulator is modelled as a subdevice of the DVFSRC.
> + Because DVFSRC can request power directly via register read/write, likes
> + vcore which is a core power of mt8183. As such, the DVFSRC regulator
> + requires that DVFSRC nodes be present. shall contain only one of the
> + following: "mediatek,mt8183-dvfsrc-regulator"
Why do we even need a compatible here - it's not adding any new
information to the parent mt8183 node, the compatible is mainly for the
way Linux divides things up rather than a description of the hardware.
We could just say that the regulator node always has a particular name
instead.
It's also not quite true that it contains "only" the compatible - it
also allows the regulator constraints to be defined.
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 20:38 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Henry Chen wrote:
>
> > +- regulator : The DVFSRC regulator is modelled as a subdevice of the DVFSRC.
> > + Because DVFSRC can request power directly via register read/write, likes
> > + vcore which is a core power of mt8183. As such, the DVFSRC regulator
> > + requires that DVFSRC nodes be present. shall contain only one of the
> > + following: "mediatek,mt8183-dvfsrc-regulator"
>
> Why do we even need a compatible here - it's not adding any new
> information to the parent mt8183 node, the compatible is mainly for the
> way Linux divides things up rather than a description of the hardware.
> We could just say that the regulator node always has a particular name
> instead.
Sorry, not quite sure what you mean, because I think DVFSRC is a
regulator provider that can provide vcore voltage control on mt8183, and
it can provide more power control in the next generation Mediatek SOC.
Here I add a sub-node to describe it. Or should I move this node to
regulator folder?
>
> It's also not quite true that it contains "only" the compatible - it
> also allows the regulator constraints to be defined.