Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-207098-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:36:36 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@quicinc.com>,
	Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_skakitap@quicinc.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/14] dt-bindings: mfd: pm8008: rework binding
Message-ID: <ZmR6hPVZsYlyC5o5@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20240529162958.18081-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <20240529162958.18081-12-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <d5omeycp4l3mrzgswga2jkgxydpiayqfdjavwnfswcojawiqkt@zuol3vvkao5r>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d5omeycp4l3mrzgswga2jkgxydpiayqfdjavwnfswcojawiqkt@zuol3vvkao5r>

On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:43:16AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 06:29:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Rework the pm8008 binding by dropping internal details like register
> > offsets and interrupts and by adding the missing regulator and
> > temperature alarm properties.
> > 
> > Note that child nodes are still used for pinctrl and regulator
> > configuration.
> > 
> > Also note that the pinctrl state definition will be extended later and
> > could eventually also be shared with other PMICs (e.g. by breaking out
> > bits of qcom,pmic-gpio.yaml).
> 
> Obviously we want to adapt this style of bindings for the other PMICs
> too. My main concern here are PMICs which have two kinds of controlled
> pins: GPIOs and MPPs. With the existing bindings style those are
> declared as two subdevices. What would be your suggested way to support
> MPPs with the proposed kind of bindings?

As far as I understand newer PMICs do not have MPP blocks and we do not
necessarily want to convert the existing bindings.

That said, if there is ever a need to describe two separate gpio blocks
this can, for example, be done using subnodes on those PMICs.

Johan