ROHM BD96801 is a highly configurable automotive grade PMIC. Introduce
DT bindings for the BD96801 regulators.

Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>

---
RFCv2 => v1
    - Drop regulator-name pattern requirement
    - do not require regulator-name
---
 .../regulator/rohm,bd96801-regulator.yaml     | 62 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/rohm,bd96801-regulator.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/rohm,bd96801-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/rohm,bd96801-regulator.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1b96ae60064d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/rohm,bd96801-regulator.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/regulator/rohm,bd96801-regulator.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: ROHM BD96801 Power Management Integrated Circuit regulators
+
+maintainers:
+  - Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
+
+description: |
+  This module is part of the ROHM BD96801 MFD device. For more details
+  see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/rohm,bd96801-pmic.yaml.
+
+  The regulator controller is represented as a sub-node of the PMIC node
+  on the device tree.
+
+  Regulator nodes should be named to BUCK_<number> and LDO_<number>.
+  The valid names for BD96801 regulator nodes are
+  BUCK1, BUCK2, BUCK3, BUCK4, LDO5, LDO6, LDO7
+
+patternProperties:
+  "^LDO[5-7]$":
+    type: object
+    description:
+      Properties for single LDO regulator.
+    $ref: regulator.yaml#
+
+    properties:
+      rohm,initial-voltage-microvolt:
+        description:
+          Initial voltage for regulator. Voltage can be tuned +/-150 mV from
+          this value. NOTE, This can be modified via I2C only when PMIC is in
+          STBY state.
+        minimum: 300000
+        maximum: 3300000
+
+    unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+  "^BUCK[1-4]$":
+    type: object
+    description:
+      Properties for single BUCK regulator.
+    $ref: regulator.yaml#
+
+    properties:
+      rohm,initial-voltage-microvolt:
+        description:
+          Initial voltage for regulator. Voltage can be tuned +/-150 mV from
+          this value. NOTE, This can be modified via I2C only when PMIC is in
+          STBY state.
+        minimum: 500000
+        maximum: 3300000
+      rohm,keep-on-stby:
+        description:
+          Keep the regulator powered when PMIC transitions to STBY state.
+        type: boolean
+
+    unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+additionalProperties: false
-- 
2.44.0


-- 
Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU
FINLAND

~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished ~~~
Simon says - in Latin please.
~~~ "non cogito me" dixit Rene Descarte, deinde evanescavit ~~~
Thanks to Simon Glass for the translation =] 

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 02:59:50PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> ROHM BD96801 is a highly configurable automotive grade PMIC. Introduce
> DT bindings for the BD96801 regulators.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
> 
> ---
> RFCv2 => v1

RFC is a status, not a version - ideally this would have been v3 and the
next version v4.

>     - Drop regulator-name pattern requirement
>     - do not require regulator-name


Krzysztof had some comments on the buck/ldo node names and on the
initial value properties that I'm not sure if have been addressed, so
gonna leave this series to him.

Cheers,
Conor.

Hi Conor,

On 5/2/24 19:20, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 02:59:50PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> ROHM BD96801 is a highly configurable automotive grade PMIC. Introduce
>> DT bindings for the BD96801 regulators.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>> RFCv2 => v1
> 
> RFC is a status, not a version - ideally this would have been v3 and the
> next version v4.

Thanks for the clarification. I've always wondered if an RFC should be 
seen as a separate series. Previously I've ended up just dropping the 
RFC and pumping up the version. This time the switch from RFC => non RFC 
was somewhat radical as a lot of the features were dropped. Furthermore, 
I've developed the 'simple' version (this non RFC one) and 
'experimental' version (the RFC one) in separate branches - which made 
the separation even stronger in my mind - I probably started thinking 
these as two different patch series.

But, as I said, thanks for the clarification! I guess it's still better 
to make next version v2 (and not v4) to not add even more confusion...

>>      - Drop regulator-name pattern requirement
>>      - do not require regulator-name
> 
> 
> Krzysztof had some comments on the buck/ldo node names

I think Krzysztof pointed out that the regulator-name property should 
not match the data-sheet but the board. If he had something to say about 
the node names, then I've missed his comment!

> and on the
> initial value properties that I'm not sure if have been addressed, so
> gonna leave this series to him.

Thanks for pointing out I may have missed addressing some of his 
concerns. I though I fixed all issues he pointed to me but it may be I 
missed some - or accidentally dropped some change(s) when merging fixes 
from the 'experimental' branch to the 'simple'. I'll revise Krzysztof's 
feedback to the RFC before sending the next version!

Thanks!

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~

On 5/3/24 07:54, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> On 5/2/24 19:20, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 02:59:50PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>
>> Krzysztof had some comments on the buck/ldo node names
> 
> I think Krzysztof pointed out that the regulator-name property should 
> not match the data-sheet but the board. If he had something to say about 
> the node names, then I've missed his comment!
> 
>> and on the
>> initial value properties that I'm not sure if have been addressed, so
>> gonna leave this series to him.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out I may have missed addressing some of his 
> concerns. I though I fixed all issues he pointed to me but it may be I 
> missed some - or accidentally dropped some change(s) when merging fixes 
> from the 'experimental' branch to the 'simple'. I'll revise Krzysztof's 
> feedback to the RFC before sending the next version!

You were right Conor. I checked it and yes, I omitted a few of the fixes 
to regulator bindings. Please skip reviewing this version of these 
bindings, I'll handle the rest of the comments in next one!

Yours,
	-- Matti


-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~