Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:05:10 -0500 | From | Rhyland Klein <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 1/3] power_supply: Define Binding for supplied-nodes |
| |
On 2/22/2013 2:46 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 02/21/2013 04:11 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote: >> This property is meant to be used in device nodes which represent >> power_supply devices that wish to provide a list of supplies to >> which they provide power. A common case is a AC Charger with >> the batteries it powers. >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power_supply/power_supply.txt >> +Optional Properties: >> + - power-supply : This property is added to a supply in order to list the >> + devices which supply it power, referenced by their phandles. > DT properties that reference resources are usually named in the plural, > so "power-supplies" would be more appropriate here. > > It seems plausible that a single DT node could represent/instantiate > multiple separate supply objects. I think we want to employ the standard > pattern of <phandle args*> rather than just <phandle>. > > That way, each supply that can supply others would have something like a > #supply-cells = <n>, where n is the number of cells that the supply uses > to name the multiple supplies provided by that node. 0 would be a common > value here. 1 might be used for a node that represents many supplies. > > When a client supply uses a providing supply as the supply(!), do you > need any flags to parameterize the connection? If so, that might be > cause for a supplier to have a larger #supply-cells, so the flags could > be represented. > > That all said, regulators assume 1 node == 1 regulator, so an > alternative would be for a multi-supply node to include a child node per > supply, e.g.: > > power@xxx { > ... > supply1 { > ... > }; > supply2 { > ... > }; > }; > > client { > supplies = <&supply1> <&supply2>; > }; > > I don't recall why regulators went for the style above rather than the > #supply-cells style. Cc Mark Brown for any comment here. > > Also, do supplies and regulators need to inter-operate in any way (e.g. > reference each-other in DT)? > >> +Example: >> + >> + usb-charger: power@e { >> + compatible = "some,usb-charger"; >> + ... >> + }; >> + >> + ac-charger: power@e { >> + compatible = "some,ac-charger"; >> + ... >> + }; >> + >> + battery@b { >> + compatible = "some,battery"; >> + ... >> + power-supply = <&usb-charger>, <&ac-charger>; >> + };
The "connection" between supplier and supplies isn't really a hard connection. Essentially, the core code uses the names/nodes in the list and iterates over all the power_supplies that are registered and does matching.
I don't have any experience working with a single node that would spawn multiple supplies, though the situation I am sure is possible. I am interested to see what the consensus is around this design for multiple supplies, as I don't have a preference either way.
-rhyland
-- nvpublic
| |