On 4/22/25 03:20, Chiang Brian wrote:
On 3/14/25 10:44, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 3/13/25 20:30, Chiang Brian wrote:
The TPS53685 is a fully AMD SVI3 compliant step down
controller with trans-inductor voltage regulator
(TLVR) topology support, dual channels, built-in
non-volatile memory (NVM), PMBus interface, and
full compatible with TI NexFET smart power
stages.
Add support for it to the tps53679 driver.
Signed-off-by: Chiang Brian <chiang.br...@inventec.com>
---
v4 -> V5:
1. document the compatible of tps53685 into dt-bindings
2. add the buffer length as argument for %*ph
3. Add Changelog
v3 -> V4:
1. Add length comparison into the comparison of "id",or it may be true
when
the substring of "id" matches device id.
2. Restore `return 0;` in `tps53679_identify_chip()`
V2 -> V3:
1. Remove the length comparsion in the comparison of "id".
V1 -> V2:
1. Modify subject and description to meet requirements
2. Add "tps53685" into enum chips with numeric order
3. Modify the content of marco "TPS53681_DEVICE_ID" from 0x81 to "\x81"
Add marco "TPS53685_DEVICE_ID" with content "TIShP"
4. Modify the type of "id" from u16 to char* in
`tps53679_identify_chip()`
5. Modify the comparison of "id". It will be true if the string "id"
matches
device ID and compare with type char*,
6. Add the length comparsion into the comparison of "id".
7. Modify "len" as return code in `tps53679_identify_chip()`
8. Output device error log with %*ph, instead of 0x%x\n"
9. Use existing tps53679_identify_multiphase() with argument
"TPS53685_DEVICE_ID" in tps53685_identify() rather than creating one
tps53685_identify_multiphase()
boot-log:
This is completely useless noise.
Sorry for the delay, I've got the approval for posting the boot-log from our
customer. I was afraid that there's any confidential information in the boot-log
It still does not belong into the commit log. If you absolutely want to,
at least add it after "---".
of our project. So, I decided to post a boot-log with my laptop then, and I'll
append a new one once new patch has been finished and uploaded.
And thanks for the suggestion of adding a buffer length for %*ph.
The kernel crashes and keeps rebooting without adding that.
In addition, should I in-reply-to the existing thread or create a new one
since the dt-bindings should be included in the same thread as well?
You mean for v6 ? Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst says:
"... However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the
series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
unmanageable forest of references in email clients. If a link is
helpful, you can use the https://lore.kernel.org/ redirector (e.g., in
the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series."
Guenter
