mbox series

[0/2] arm64: dts: imx8mm-evk: Fix hdmi@3d node

Message ID 20230814081148.4027053-1-victor.liu@nxp.com
Headers show
Series arm64: dts: imx8mm-evk: Fix hdmi@3d node | expand

Message

Liu Ying Aug. 14, 2023, 8:11 a.m. UTC 
Hi,

This series aims to fix hdmi@3d node in imx8mm-evk.dtsi.
This should make CHECK_DTBS happy if we check imx8mm-evk.dtb against
adi,adv7533.yaml.

Patch 1 is a preparation for patch 2.
Patch 2 fixes the hdmi@3d node.

Liu Ying (2):
  arm64: dts: imx8mm-evk: Add VDDEXT_3V3 fixed regulator
  arm64: dts: imx8mm-evk: Fix hdmi@3d node

 arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm-evk.dtsi | 32 ++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Comments

Fabio Estevam Aug. 18, 2023, 2:05 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Liu,

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:07 AM Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com> wrote:

> +       reg_vddext_3v3: regulator-vddext-3v3 {
> +               compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> +               regulator-name = "VDDEXT_3V3";
> +               regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> +               regulator-max-microvolt = <300000>;
> +       };

Booting the dtb with this change will cause this regulator to be
disabled as there is no consumer for it.

I suggest squashing both patches:

Tested-by: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
Liu Ying Aug. 21, 2023, 2:33 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Friday, August 18, 2023 10:06 PM Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Liu,

Hi Fabio,

> 
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:07 AM Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com> wrote:
> 
> > +       reg_vddext_3v3: regulator-vddext-3v3 {
> > +               compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > +               regulator-name = "VDDEXT_3V3";
> > +               regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > +               regulator-max-microvolt = <300000>;
> > +       };
> 
> Booting the dtb with this change will cause this regulator to be
> disabled as there is no consumer for it.

Software cannot control this regulator by any means.  It's on once
the board is powered on.  Do you mean it will be disabled in software
level if no consumer?  If that's the case, is the disablement harmful?

> 
> I suggest squashing both patches:

The patch looks self-contained to me.  Can we keep it as-is?

> 
> Tested-by: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>

Thanks for your test!

Regards,
Liu Ying