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

[Ian Campbell]

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 <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.

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.