[linux-sunxi] [PATCH 2/8] mfd: axp20x: Add a cell for the usb power_supply part of the axp20x PMICs

Hi,

On 10-06-15 03:19, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Add a cell for the usb power_supply part of the axp20x PMICs.

Note that this cell is only for the usb power_supply part and not the
ac-power / battery-charger / rtc-backup-bat-charger bits.

Depending on the board each of those must be enabled / disabled separately
in devicetree as most boards do not use all 4. So in dt each one needs its
own child-node of the axp20x node. Another reason for using separate child
nodes for each is so that other devicetree nodes can have a power-supply
property with a phandle referencing a node representing a single
power-supply.

The decision to use a separate devicetree node for each is reflected on
the kernel side by each getting its own mfd-cell / platform_device and
platform-driver.

Cc: Bruno Pr?mont <bonbons@linux-vserver.org>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <redacted>
---
  drivers/mfd/axp20x.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/axp20x.c b/drivers/mfd/axp20x.c
index 6ffbc11..47ce233 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/axp20x.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/axp20x.c

@@ -113,6 +113,30 @@ static struct resource axp20x_pek_resources[] = {
         },
  };

+static struct resource axp20x_usb_power_supply_resources[] = {
+       {
+               .name   = "VBUS_PLUGIN",
+               .start  = AXP20X_IRQ_VBUS_PLUGIN,
+               .end    = AXP20X_IRQ_VBUS_PLUGIN,
+               .flags  = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
+       }, {
+               .name   = "VBUS_REMOVAL",
+               .start  = AXP20X_IRQ_VBUS_REMOVAL,
+               .end    = AXP20X_IRQ_VBUS_REMOVAL,
+               .flags  = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
+       }, {
+               .name   = "VBUS_VALID",
+               .start  = AXP20X_IRQ_VBUS_VALID,
+               .end    = AXP20X_IRQ_VBUS_VALID,
+               .flags  = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
+       }, {
+               .name   = "VBUS_NOT_VALID",
+               .start  = AXP20X_IRQ_VBUS_NOT_VALID,
+               .end    = AXP20X_IRQ_VBUS_NOT_VALID,
+               .flags  = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
+       },
+};
+
  static struct resource axp22x_pek_resources[] = {
         {
                 .name   = "PEK_DBR",

@@ -165,7 +189,7 @@ static const struct regmap_config axp20x_regmap_config = {
         .val_bits       = 8,
         .wr_table       = &axp20x_writeable_table,
         .volatile_table = &axp20x_volatile_table,
-       .max_register   = AXP20X_FG_RES,
+       .max_register   = AXP20X_OCV(15),
         .cache_type     = REGCACHE_RBTREE,
  };

@@ -368,6 +392,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell axp20x_cells[] = {
                 .resources              = axp20x_pek_resources,
         }, {
                 .name                   = "axp20x-regulator",
+       }, {
+               .name                   = "axp20x-usb-power-supply",

Could we use either "vbus-power-supply" to match the AXP datasheets,
or "otg-power-supply" which is slightly more obvious to board owners?

I do not like the vbus name, since it does not indicate which bus
it is, OTOH you are right that is what it is called in the datasheet.

As for using otg, I think that usb is better then.

All in all I believe that the current usb name is best, but if others
disagree I'm open to renaming this.

So anyone else have an opinion on what would be a good name for the
cell and the compatible ?

Regards,

Hans