[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/7] sunxi: power: Unify axp pmic function names

[Hans de Goede]

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 <hdegoede at 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. Some a80 / a83 boards may only use the primary pmic, but using only
the secondary is not really expected.

> Is there some property of these devices which causes them to be only usable
> as one or the other?

No, not really (unless you count things like power-on / power-button handling
which only the primary has AFAIK).

> If there is some possibility of this not being the case then this
> unification + my comments on patch #1 might be seen in a different light.
>
> Having a board which uses two of the same AXPxxx device looks like it would
> be even more problematic, if such a thing is possible.

AFAIK there are no boards which use the same pmic twice.

> Or is the plan to just cross that bridge if/when we get there? (I think I'm
>   OK with that).

Yes that is pretty much the plan :)

Regards,

Hans