[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] power: regulator: support ROHM BD71837 PMIC

Matti Vaittinen matti.vaittinen at fi.rohmeurope.com
Thu Apr 4 07:03:36 UTC 2019

Hi de Ho Peeps,

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> Add regulator driver for ROHM BD71837 PMIC. BD71837 contains
> 8 bucks and 7 LDOS. Voltages for bucks 1-4 can be adjusted
> when regulators are enabled. For other bucks and LDOs we may
> have over- or undershooting if voltage is adjusted when
> regulator is enabled. Thus this is prevented by default.
> BD71837 has a quirk which may leave power output disabled
> after reset if enable/disable state was controlled by SW.
> Thus the SW control is only allowed for bucks3 and 4 by
> default.
> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen at fi.rohmeurope.com>
> ---
>  drivers/power/regulator/Kconfig   |  15 ++
>  drivers/power/regulator/Makefile  |   1 +
>  drivers/power/regulator/bd71837.c | 373 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/power/bd71837.h           |  20 ++
>  4 files changed, 409 insertions(+)

This Patch:

This was my first patch to U-boot so I wonder if there is something to
improve. Is this Ok like this or should I have formatted it somehow

Also, is this type of submissions welcome? Any place to check if
submissions are rejected, being reviewed or forgotten?

Next Steps:

Finally, the BD71837 is mainly targeted for powering the i.MX8M. There's
another ROHM PMIC BD71847 - which is mainly used for powering the
i.MX8MM. The Linux driver I wrote does support both of these PMICs and I
was thinking that maybe I should add support for BD71847 in this u-Boot
driver too. But before investing on that work I would like to get some
feedback regarding the BD71837 u-boot driver. At least a sign that this
kind of submissions are welcome or information if I am doing something
completely wrong =)

About RFC tag:

I used RFC tag here mainly because I am unsure if the driver design fits
what the u-boot is heading on or if this is kind of driver u-Boot should
include. Is this correct use of RFC, and what are the consequences of
using RFC-tag? My assumption was that the patch with RFC is reviewed as
ither patches, but it is also a sign that the patch might have something
that makes it unsuitable for applying to u-Boot. Is this correct?

Finally, I guess I need to (re)submit the driver(s) without the RFC tag
at some point, any suggestions when?

Best Regards
	Matti Vaittinen

More information about the U-Boot mailing list