Hi,
On 09-10-15 14:41, Ian Campbell wrote:
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.
Ah Yes, from what we now know / expect about how things will work on
boards with 2 pmics that is correct. I'll respin the first patch to change
things into a choice including a none option.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
