rn5t618 vs. rn5t568

rn5t618 vs. rn5t568

[Andreas Kemnade]

Hi,

just looked a bit around in the source and stumbled across drivers/mfd/rn5t568.c

It contains
 * MFD core driver for Ricoh RN5T618 PMIC

but the filename is rn5t568.c That is very confusing.
 a compatible ricoh,rn5t568 (but 567) does not exist in the kernel.

So which chip this is really about? Did not analyse things deeper yet.

I am also curious because I wrote most stuff in the kernel about the rn5t618/rc5t619.

Regards,
Andreas

Re: rn5t618 vs. rn5t568

[Sascha Hauer]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 09:09:36PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> just looked a bit around in the source and stumbled across drivers/mfd/rn5t568.c
> 
> It contains
>  * MFD core driver for Ricoh RN5T618 PMIC
> 
> but the filename is rn5t568.c That is very confusing.
>  a compatible ricoh,rn5t568 (but 567) does not exist in the kernel.
> 
> So which chip this is really about? Did not analyse things deeper yet.
> 
> I am also curious because I wrote most stuff in the kernel about the rn5t618/rc5t619.

Jürgen had to support the rn5t568 which is not yet supported in Linux.
He took the Kernel rn5t618.c driver and adjusted it accordingly. Jürgen
can't remember exactly, but he said the chips are quite similar.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Re: rn5t618 vs. rn5t568

[Juergen Borleis]

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, dem 27.04.2023 um 09:36 +0200 schrieb Sascha Hauer:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 09:09:36PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > just looked a bit around in the source and stumbled across drivers/mfd/rn5t568.c
> > 
> > It contains
> >  * MFD core driver for Ricoh RN5T618 PMIC
> > 
> > but the filename is rn5t568.c That is very confusing.
> >  a compatible ricoh,rn5t568 (but 567) does not exist in the kernel.

567 and 568 are pin compatible. As far as I know the 568 has some fixed OTP
settings which are used after reset. Depending on the type extension (C, S, AD…)
the I²C address differs and the default output voltages.

> > So which chip this is really about? Did not analyse things deeper yet.
> > 
> > I am also curious because I wrote most stuff in the kernel about the rn5t618/rc5t619.
> 
> Jürgen had to support the rn5t568 which is not yet supported in Linux.
> He took the Kernel rn5t618.c driver and adjusted it accordingly. Jürgen
> can't remember exactly, but he said the chips are quite similar.

Due to the support of the 567 variant it is already supported in the kernel.

jb

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                       | Juergen Borleis             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                   | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany              | Phone: +49-5121-206917-128  |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686       | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |

Re: rn5t618 vs. rn5t568

[Andreas Kemnade]

Hi,

On Tue, 02 May 2023 10:37:08 +0200
Juergen Borleis <jbe@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Am Donnerstag, dem 27.04.2023 um 09:36 +0200 schrieb Sascha Hauer:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 09:09:36PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote:  
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > just looked a bit around in the source and stumbled across drivers/mfd/rn5t568.c
> > > 
> > > It contains
> > >  * MFD core driver for Ricoh RN5T618 PMIC
> > > 
> > > but the filename is rn5t568.c That is very confusing.
> > >  a compatible ricoh,rn5t568 (but 567) does not exist in the kernel.  
> 
> 567 and 568 are pin compatible. As far as I know the 568 has some fixed OTP
> settings which are used after reset. Depending on the type extension (C, S, AD…)
> the I²C address differs and the default output voltages.
> 
> > > So which chip this is really about? Did not analyse things deeper yet.
> > > 
> > > I am also curious because I wrote most stuff in the kernel about the rn5t618/rc5t619.  
> > 
> > Jürgen had to support the rn5t568 which is not yet supported in Linux.
> > He took the Kernel rn5t618.c driver and adjusted it accordingly. Jürgen
> > can't remember exactly, but he said the chips are quite similar.  
> 
> Due to the support of the 567 variant it is already supported in the kernel.
> 
hmm, but if you do not share dt compatibles, you need to maintain different
devicetrees in kernel vs. barebox. I thought you try to keep them in sync as
much a possible. Also in mainline kernel the watchdog does not have its own
device tree node.

Regards,
Andreas