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: <e9c38029-f27d-7800-2ba8-d9ee19d999e4@collabora.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:01:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add support for MT6366 PMIC
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Zhiyong Tao <zhiyong.tao@mediatek.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
References: <20230803074249.3065586-1-wenst@chromium.org>
 <20230803074249.3065586-10-wenst@chromium.org>
From:   AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230803074249.3065586-10-wenst@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Il 03/08/23 09:42, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
> The MT6366 PMIC is mostly, but not fully, compatible with MT6358. It has
> a different set of regulators. Specifically, it lacks the camera related
> VCAM* LDOs, but has additional VM18, VMDDR, and VSRAM_CORE LDOs.
> 
> Add a separate compatible for the MT6366 PMIC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>

We can express the same partial-compatibility state with bindings, adding a
new compatible here with the same platform data doesn't really add any value...

...also because in DT we'll have something like
	compatible = "mediatek,mt6366", "mediatek,mt6358";

so if any variation of platform data in mtk-pmic-wrap will ever be needed, we
would still be able to do that in the future without any headache.

In my opinion, this commit can be dropped.

P.S.: We could add a comment in the mt6366.dtsi pmic devicetree for that, too?

Cheers,
Angelo

> ---
>   drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 2 ++
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> index 11095b8de71a..e3c0e767033b 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> @@ -2257,6 +2257,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id of_slave_match_tbl[] = {
>   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6357", .data = &pmic_mt6357 },
>   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6358", .data = &pmic_mt6358 },
>   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6359", .data = &pmic_mt6359 },
> +	/* MT6366 is mostly compatible with MT6358, except for slightly different regulators. */
> +	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6366", .data = &pmic_mt6358 },
>   
>   	/* The MT6380 PMIC only implements a regulator, so we bind it
>   	 * directly instead of using a MFD.