Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-70075-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 20:30:03 +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: <20240217-studio-cytoplast-ca99a55e7a36@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>
 <20240215-wildfire-dotted-a561e86a6054@spud>
 <9cc60b90-329b-4065-a3c8-74c208964d45@roeck-us.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="D2aeU6KpYyLQU2Qj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9cc60b90-329b-4065-a3c8-74c208964d45@roeck-us.net>


--D2aeU6KpYyLQU2Qj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 07:57:43AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/15/24 03:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > 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 regula=
tors
> > > > > > that might end up sharing the binding?
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Primarily because that is what the PMBus core generates for the d=
river
> > > > > 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 fo=
r 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 interpr=
et
> > > it along that line. My apologies if that was not the idea.
> >=20
> > 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".
> >=20
>=20
> "convention" only if lack of awareness how regulators are supposed to be =
named
> is a convention.

They're "supposed" to be named whatever the binding says they are named,
but as we've discovered none of these devices actually have bindings
that allow regulators in the first place. I think they should be called
whatever they're called in the documentation for the device, which in
this case was "vout".

> > > Still, I really don't know how to resolve this for existing PMBus dri=
vers
> > > which do register "vout0" even if there is only a single output regul=
ator.
> >=20
> > 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 car=
es
> > 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/tre=
e/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-delta-ahe50dc.dts?id=3D8d3dea210042f5=
4b952b481838c1e7dfc4ec751d#n21
> > I guess it uses the i2c device ids to probe on that platform, or have
> > I missed something there?
> >=20
>=20
> I think that is correct. If I recall correctly, the I2C subsystem no long=
er
> searches for compatible drivers by only looking at the device id in the
> compatible node, so I guess one has to list "lm25066" instead of "ti,lm25=
066"
> as compatible to get a match in the i2c subsystem. That is of course
> completely wrong.

If the driver is probing based on i2c_device_id matching, is it correct to
use DT to probe the regulators? (I don't know, that's not some sort of
rhetorical question).

--D2aeU6KpYyLQU2Qj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZdEXSwAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0gOYAP9P80PNTgJyncyBUxpU84sRQkXT+6oYERv+nytj6zTs+wD9FlnhbvwEkPy6
0gZXsU7X2UrgvG2+rck9hf5RjIvO9Q0=
=nN+t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--D2aeU6KpYyLQU2Qj--