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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230803074249.3065586-1-wenst@chromium.org> <20230803074249.3065586-10-wenst@chromium.org>
 <e9c38029-f27d-7800-2ba8-d9ee19d999e4@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9c38029-f27d-7800-2ba8-d9ee19d999e4@collabora.com>
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:49:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGXv+5G+kLNaj3F1NG+Y2zQuc7Xv_wczHeFUEUNGo8ZdVWYM1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add support for MT6366 PMIC
To:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
Cc:     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>,
        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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 5:01=E2=80=AFPM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Il 03/08/23 09:42, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
> > The MT6366 PMIC is mostly, but not fully, compatible with MT6358. It ha=
s
> > a different set of regulators. Specifically, it lacks the camera relate=
d
> > 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 va=
lue...
>
> ...also because in DT we'll have something like
>         compatible =3D "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.

As mentioned in my reply to the mfd patch, this might not be doable. There
are limitations on both the DT bindings and mfd driver sides.

ChenYu

> 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/mediate=
k/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_t=
bl[] =3D {
> >       { .compatible =3D "mediatek,mt6357", .data =3D &pmic_mt6357 },
> >       { .compatible =3D "mediatek,mt6358", .data =3D &pmic_mt6358 },
> >       { .compatible =3D "mediatek,mt6359", .data =3D &pmic_mt6359 },
> > +     /* MT6366 is mostly compatible with MT6358, except for slightly d=
ifferent regulators. */
> > +     { .compatible =3D "mediatek,mt6366", .data =3D &pmic_mt6358 },
> >
> >       /* The MT6380 PMIC only implements a regulator, so we bind it
> >        * directly instead of using a MFD.
>
>