[RFC v2 1/3] power_supply: Define Binding for supplied-nodes
Stephen Warren
swarren at wwwdotorg.org
Sat Feb 23 06:46:01 EST 2013
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 at 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 at e {
> + compatible = "some,usb-charger";
> + ...
> + };
> +
> + ac-charger: power at e {
> + compatible = "some,ac-charger";
> + ...
> + };
> +
> + battery at b {
> + compatible = "some,battery";
> + ...
> + power-supply = <&usb-charger>, <&ac-charger>;
> + };
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list