From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com (lelv0142.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.249]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7EAA14F11E; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:45:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.249 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726483503; cv=none; b=NItH/cFoUncj84dqP0YBCoKq4rYBKS/Dn+cfYGFe7NFgjpjrI9ltHxSGTeB02DDdXifz+jRHpYZBWTSi4CnvI6OKKb7aBMaDt79GOA6zaAcBWx4LMsJO5ID+j6NxgvjKS37h+b/IDzmW1wcnP73Ln4xQx5pAtXVmZpeDnHMTRaA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726483503; c=relaxed/simple; bh=o59dL819fJ6zGURqdBqB42E/6GtUK2dTZjXgsYOPuRM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=i8YinulRLjyjy3g/Dut+6oMgn1/t4MwfVtWYA17wXsfubvD0FvY4C8/+P1HBmdwJm4F8TBqvVmEfFaJ4c0HaFPC3ecNFKuoHE4GcoB+MabV6iv3tija4BnHhbEUpBqlFEUoWdXaFFFUZeJq3spNySpY31sjyvxFku2AzU6ucxqk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=sg6MUeb9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.249 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="sg6MUeb9" Received: from lelv0265.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.224]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 48GAimRJ034340; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 05:44:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1726483488; bh=c41oU7Ad79H3UL8ipktVy6gBiXbYWMNfsad8ymFmWB4=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=sg6MUeb9qAyMtkogW1W2XJe83R8KoJ2LuesEjH/JX4M1UCyWS5mhhKaIwi8EaPVTQ 3y65i61ssLNO6vhrUaLZ9pXQSnw7cVdt6S4SFyiii6gYgU2bDTxgPOOHiGEQnaTzuY o1r9FgipN0LqgwXwuv6SEIXg1SzDVodPBZHM+hbg= Received: from DFLE101.ent.ti.com (dfle101.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.22]) by lelv0265.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 48GAimCe028539 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 16 Sep 2024 05:44:48 -0500 Received: from DFLE101.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.22) by DFLE101.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 05:44:48 -0500 Received: from lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.250) by DFLE101.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 05:44:48 -0500 Received: from [172.24.227.151] (uda0510294.dhcp.ti.com [172.24.227.151]) by lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 48GAih9M129669; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 05:44:44 -0500 Message-ID: <9aedf384-207a-4eb7-a371-70bbe76ab5af@ti.com> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:14:43 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j784s4-evm: Mark tps659413 regulators as bootph-all To: Andrew Halaney CC: Nishanth Menon , Vignesh Raghavendra , Tero Kristo , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Keerthy , Neha Malcom Francis , Eric Chanudet , Enric Balletbo , Udit Kumar , , , References: <20240911-j784s4-tps6594-bootph-v2-0-a83526264ab1@redhat.com> <20240911-j784s4-tps6594-bootph-v2-1-a83526264ab1@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Beleswar Prasad Padhi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 On 14/09/24 00:27, Andrew Halaney wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 04:27:47PM GMT, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> On 11/09/24 22:49, Andrew Halaney wrote: >>> In order for the MCU domain to access this PMIC, a regulator >>> needs to be marked appropriately otherwise it is not seen by SPL and >>> therefore not configured. >>> >>> This is necessary if the MCU domain is to program the TPS6594 MCU ESM >>> state machine, which is required to wire up the watchdog in a manner >>> that will reset the board. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts >>> index 6695ebbcb4d0..6ed628c2884e 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-evm.dts >>> @@ -663,6 +663,7 @@ tps659413: pmic@48 { >>> regulators { >>> bucka12: buck12 { >>> + bootph-all; >>> regulator-name = "vdd_ddr_1v1"; >>> regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>; >>> regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; >> >> In my opinion, bootph-all property should come after other standard >> properties like regulator-name etc., as it is least important to Linux. Same >> comment for other nodes wherever applicable. What is your opinion? >> >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst#n130 > I think that does align better with the dts-coding-style doc! > > Looking at the tree though, the standard currently in the TI folder > is to put it first. In my opinion if changing the ordering is desired > it should be done in one fell swoop (outside this series). I'd do There is a series[0] under review which takes care of this bootph- addition and order correction. In that series, looks like bootph- is placed at the end of the list of all standard properties. So, it is better if we align these patches to follow the same. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240814-b4-upstream-bootph-all-v4-2-f2b462000f25@ti.com/ Thanks, Beleswar > it one big patch, but I'm curious if that's decided the way forward what > the TI maintainers would like to see. I can send that patch if desired. > > For now I think sticking with the current practice in this series > makes sense until that fell swoop happens. > > Please let me know if you feel strongly otherwise. > > Thanks, > Andrew >