Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-66833-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:48:38 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, mazziesaccount@gmail.com,
	linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tda38640: Add interrupt &
 regulator properties
Message-ID: <20240215-wildfire-dotted-a561e86a6054@spud>
References: <20240214092504.1237402-1-naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
 <20240214-trinity-delouse-6dcd0b046895@spud>
 <0f1665e5-bae1-4a17-a976-cc225a28dad3@roeck-us.net>
 <20240214-dimly-wife-5b6239d4adec@spud>
 <b306a27e-505e-43d4-aaf8-ab31284a3396@roeck-us.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tmiZQ9tIrjdkv1MF"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b306a27e-505e-43d4-aaf8-ab31284a3396@roeck-us.net>


--tmiZQ9tIrjdkv1MF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:17:04PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/14/24 11:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > > > Why "vout0" if there's only one output? Is it called that in the
> > > > documentation? I had a quick check but only saw it called "vout".
> > > > Are there other related devices that would have multiple regulators
> > > > that might end up sharing the binding?
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Primarily because that is what the PMBus core generates for the driver
> > > because no one including me was aware that this is unacceptable
> > > for single-output drivers.
> >=20
> > Is it unacceptable? If you're implying that I am saying it is, that's
> > not what I was doing here - I'm just wondering why it was chosen.
> > Numbering when there's only one seems odd, so I was just looking for the
> > rationale.
> >=20
>=20
> Given the tendency of corporate speak (aka "this was a good attempt" for
> a complete screwup), and since this did come up before, I did interpret
> it along that line. My apologies if that was not the idea.

I'm not gonna go and decree that "vout0" is unacceptable, if it was
called that in documentation that I had missed or was convention, I was
just gonna say "okay, that sounds reasonable to me".

> Still, I really don't know how to resolve this for existing PMBus drivers
> which do register "vout0" even if there is only a single output regulator.

I had a quick look at that series, none of the devices that I checked
out there seem to have documented regulators at all. Some of the devices
were only documented in trivial-devices.yaml. Relying on the naming of
undocumented child nodes is a bug in those drivers & I guess nobody cares
about dtbs_check complaints for those platforms. The example that was
linked in the other thread doesn't even use a valid compatible :(
	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/ar=
ch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-delta-ahe50dc.dts?id=3D8d3dea210042f54b95=
2b481838c1e7dfc4ec751d#n21
I guess it uses the i2c device ids to probe on that platform, or have
I missed something there?

Cheers,
Conor.

--tmiZQ9tIrjdkv1MF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZc36FQAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0pUaAQCoI/EW1WcdOCPKDAlNbr2bCXACKjFu6s7NFg8LVaQekQD+IGn2qZPeluC+
C6w8/WhsHQp3eI+6sJbs1z6r/ZvPZw0=
=VQ5Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tmiZQ9tIrjdkv1MF--