[PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: pf530x: dt-bindings: nxp,pf530x-regulator

Woodrow Douglass posted 2 patches 1 month ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: pf530x: dt-bindings: nxp,pf530x-regulator
Posted by Woodrow Douglass 1 month ago
Bindings for the pf530x series of voltage regulators

Signed-off-by: Woodrow Douglass <wdouglass@carnegierobotics.com>
---
 .../bindings/regulator/nxp,pf530x-regulator.yaml   | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/nxp,pf530x-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/nxp,pf530x-regulator.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..f1065b167491
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/nxp,pf530x-regulator.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/regulator/nxp,pf530x-regulator.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: NXP PF5300/PF5301/PF5302 PMIC regulators
+
+maintainers:
+  - Woodrow Douglass <wdouglass@carnegierobotics.com>
+
+description: |
+  The PF5300, PF5301, and PF5302 integrate high-performance buck converters, 12 A, 8 A,
+  and 15 A, respectively, to power high-end automotive and industrial processors. With adaptive
+  voltage positioning and a high-bandwidth loop, they offer transient regulation to minimize capacitor
+  requirements.
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    enum:
+      - nxp,pf5300
+      - nxp,pf5301
+      - nxp,pf5302
+
+  reg:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  regulators:
+    type: object
+    description: |
+      list of regulators provided by this controller
+
+    properties:
+      SW1:
+        type: object
+        $ref: regulator.yaml#
+        description:
+          Properties for the regulator.
+
+        properties:
+          regulator-name:
+            pattern: "^SW1$"
+            description:
+              Name of the single regulator
+
+    additionalProperties: false
+
+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+  - regulators
+
+additionalProperties: false
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    i2c1 {
+        #address-cells = <1>;
+        #size-cells = <0>;
+
+        vddi_0_75@28 {
+            compatible = "nxp,pf5302";
+            reg = <0x28>;
+
+            regulators {
+                SW1: SW1 {
+                    regulator-always-on;
+                    regulator-boot-on;
+                    regulator-max-microvolt = <1200000>;
+                    regulator-min-microvolt = <500000>;
+                };
+            };
+        };
+    };

-- 
2.39.5
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: pf530x: dt-bindings: nxp,pf530x-regulator
Posted by Krzysztof Kozlowski 1 month ago
On 02/09/2025 23:17, Woodrow Douglass wrote:
> Bindings for the pf530x series of voltage regulators
> 
> Signed-off-by: Woodrow Douglass <wdouglass@carnegierobotics.com>
> ---
>  .../bindings/regulator/nxp,pf530x-regulator.yaml   | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 74 insertions(+)
> 

Nothing improved and you sent it AFTER you received my feedback.

Don't ignore the comments.

Do not attach (thread) your patchsets to some other threads (unrelated
or older versions). This buries them deep in the mailbox and might
interfere with applying entire sets.

<form letter>
This is a friendly reminder during the review process.

It seems my or other reviewer's previous comments were not fully
addressed. Maybe the feedback got lost between the quotes, maybe you
just forgot to apply it. Please go back to the previous discussion and
either implement all requested changes or keep discussing them.

Thank you.
</form letter>

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: pf530x: dt-bindings: nxp,pf530x-regulator
Posted by Mark Brown 4 weeks, 1 day ago
On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 08:16:21AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/09/2025 23:17, Woodrow Douglass wrote:

> > Bindings for the pf530x series of voltage regulators

> Nothing improved and you sent it AFTER you received my feedback.

He said in the cover letter that he was resending copying in the lists
as per your request and would follow up with another verision with the
changes we both requested.  Obviously it'd have been better to just send
that version or at least tag this as a resend but I do understand the
confusion.