[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] power: regulator: support ROHM BD71837 PMIC
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
> 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 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?
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?
More information about the U-Boot