On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:24 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 09-10-15 10:31, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 22:16 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 03-10-15 16:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Stop prefixing the axp functions for setting voltages, etc. with > > > > > the > > > > > model number, there ever is only one pmic driver built into u > > > > > -boot, > > > > > this allows simplifying the callers. > > > > > > > > Hmm... What's going to happen with the A80, which has 2 PMICs? IIRC > > > > a subset of their LDOs share the same name, which would be a > > > > problem. > > > > > > My plan for that is to use a different function name for the ldo-s > > > on the secondary pmic, e.g. something like axp2_set_xldo1(...), or > > > somesuch. Actually this patch should help adding support for the > > > other pmics since it will make it less of an #ifdef fest. > > > > Is it going to be (or very likely to be) the case that a given AXPxxx > > device will only ever be a primary or a secondary, but never used as > > both > > (perhaps on different boards)? > > AFAIK that is correct, there are different axp models for primary / secondary > pmics.
OK, that makes sense, but then this: > Some a80 / a83 boards may only use the primary pmic, but using only > the secondary is not really expected. ... makes me want to clarify, since I understand that having a secondary but not a primary would be rather strange and wasn't what I was getting at. What I meant was for a given AXPxxx is that model only ever either used as a primary _or_ used as a secondary (with some other AXPabc as the primary). I think your answer further above is telling me that yes, a given AXPxxx is either designed (and used) as a primary or a secondary. >From the patch #1 discussion (since it is predicated on the above and splitting the conversation in two will probably just get confusing): > > ... these three ought to be inside a choice? > > I was thinking the same, but on A80 boards there are 2 > different axp chips, so if we make this a choice now we > just end up needing to revert this when we get full A80 support. But one of those would be a primary and the other a secondary, and as discussed above (as I currently understand it at least) each CONFIG_AXPxxx_POWER can be a primary XOR a secondary. In which case what we would want is a set of choice options for primary and a separate set choice options for secondary (with a none option too in this case) and there would be no duplication of any specific AXPxxx option between both the primary and secondary sets. Ian. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
