Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:15:14 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mfd: rohm-bd71828: Add power off functionality | From | Matti Vaittinen <> |
| |
Morning Andreas,
On 3/28/24 00:02, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > Hi Matti, > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:11:36 +0200 > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/27/24 15:04, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:32:29 +0200 >>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It's worth noting that there is another PMIC, BD71879, which, from the >>>> driver software point of view, should be (almost?) identical to the >>>> BD71828. I believe the BD71828 drivers should work with it as well - if >>>> not out of the box, at least with very minor modifications. >>>> Unfortunately I don't know products where the BD71879 is used or if it >>>> is sold via distributors - so I don't know if adding a DT >>>> compatible/chip type define for it would be beneficial. >>> >>> yes, you already told we thet the BD71828 drivers are compatible with >>> the BD71879 and I am using the latter. >>> But that at least should be commented somewhere, so that >>> people do not raise questions, like: Do I have some strange board revision, >>> etc? >>> The most terse form to comment it is a separate dt compatible so we are >>> prepare any "almost identical" surprises. >> >> I agree. Reason why I haven't done this already is that I don't always >> (like in this case) know which of the variant are eventually sold. So, >> it's balancing dance between adding compatibles for ICs that will never >> been seen by large audience, and missing compatibles for some of the >> variants. >> >> This is also why I was interested in knowing which variant you had, and >> where was it used. >> > I have found it in the Kobo Clara 2E ebook reader. > Kobo seems to switch from RC5T619 to BD71879. > The Kobo Nia rev C also has that one. > Kobo Libra 2 has several hardware revs out in the wild, some of them > with the BD71879.
Thanks for the info :) It's a shame we so rarely know where things we work for are used. I always find news like this interesting.
>> But yes, I think that as the BD71879 has obviously been found by a >> community linux kernel user - it would make sense to add a compatible >> for it! >> >> Do you feel like adding the compatible 'rohm,bd71879' in >> rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml as part of this series(?) > > Do we want a separate chip_type now? Or do we want to add it later if > we ever see a difference. My personal opinion is to wait until there is > really a need.
Using the BD71828 chip_id for BD71879 in the MFD driver is fine to me. A comment saying they seem "functionally equivalent" can be added to explain this choice.
> If we do not need it, then it is a different series I think but sure > I will produce such a patch.
Great, thanks! I think it's clearer to have it as own patch, but I think it fits in the same series - what suits you best. (Don't know if Lee or DT peeps have different opinion.)
Yours, -- Matti
-- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
| |