Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <511a84a8-ecb4-13bb-2eab-982b19758ba5@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 13:32:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: Add qcom-pbs bindings
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, <pavel@ucw.cz>, <lee@kernel.org>,
        <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        <conor+dt@kernel.org>, <agross@kernel.org>, <andersson@kernel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230621185949.2068-1-quic_amelende@quicinc.com>
 <20230621185949.2068-2-quic_amelende@quicinc.com>
 <20230626135857.GA3118929-robh@kernel.org>
 <2e871e21-a81d-0d7d-993b-9a9d7bd9d962@quicinc.com>
 <e7298704-5a03-0961-90a3-dab4af60c326@linaro.org>
 <32e9a512-fd74-b2f6-6b8a-fefb9ad5912d@quicinc.com>
 <431faa87-d152-5f7a-40fd-8b6fe26f0bb9@linaro.org>
 <71e1f36f-8fd8-9d61-d563-577d4fb54f10@quicinc.com>
 <69c01f0f-4eb0-bb44-a238-5c9ce5beede9@linaro.org>
 <CAA8EJppCSnEg1GjX8CavxRPiiE19JwVAOTspjWJR-OzdQMcu+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ecf968b-45b2-c6b7-86a7-8d8caccf5002@linaro.org>
From:   Anjelique Melendez <quic_amelende@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <7ecf968b-45b2-c6b7-86a7-8d8caccf5002@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 7/12/2023 1:11 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 16:35, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> Rob asked you - "Is there more than 1 instance in a PMIC?" - and you did
>>>>> not answer positively, just mentioned something about drivers in
>>>>> downstream, which do not matter. So is the answer for that question:
>>>>> yes, you have two instances of the same PMIC differing by presence of
>>>>> PBS and other features"?
>>>>>
>>>> Sorry that was a misunderstanding on my part.
>>>> Yes, answer to Rob's question should have been "We have two instances of PMI632,
>>>> where one instance holds the pbs peripheral and the other holds the lpg
>>>> peripherals. The child node for pbs is needed so lpg client can access
>>>> the PMI632 regmap which contains the pbs peripheral."
>>>
>>> I guess I miss here something. What is "LPG client"? I don't understand
>>> why this LPG client needs existence of PBS node, to be able to get the
>>> regmap.
>>>
>>> PBS is a child of PMIC, so it can get regmap from the parent. What's
>>> more, which DT property passes the regmap from PMIC to LPG client?
>>
>> There are some PMICs which claim two SPMI SIDs. For such PMICs, each
>> SID is a separate device, so it is not directly possible to get the
>> regmap of the other SID.
> 
> OK, maybe after implementing all the review changes - including dropping
> that singleton pattern - this will be clearer. Please send new version
> and we will discuss it from there.
> 
Sure, will work on getting that new version sent but I did just have clarifying question.
When you say "dropping that singleton pattern" are you referring to dropping the 
PBS node?
Want to make sure we are all on the same page with what the next version will include :)

Thanks,
Anjelique