Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] hwmon: (pmbus/vt7505) Add driver for Analog Devices MAX16545/MAX16550 and Volterra VT7505
Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-hwmon,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, On 7/24/26 09:50, Pradhan, Sanman wrote: > From: Georgi Vlaev <[email protected]> > > Add a PMBus driver for the Analog Devices MAX16545 and MAX16550, and the > Volterra VT7505 controllers. The driver reports input/output voltage, > input/output current, input power and temperature over PMBus. All values > use the direct data format. Peak input voltage, output voltage, output > current, input power and temperature readings are exposed and can be > reset. > > The reported current and power depend on the external current-report > resistor connected to the ILOAD pin, which can be provided through the > "adi,rload-ohms" device tree property. > > On the MAX16550 and VT7505, the severe-OCP deglitch time can optionally > be configured with the "adi,ocp-severe-filter-us" device tree property. > When omitted, the existing hardware setting is left unchanged. > > Signed-off-by: Georgi Vlaev <[email protected]> > Co-developed-by: Dhruva Devineni <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Dhruva Devineni <[email protected]> > Co-developed-by: Debjit Ghosh <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Debjit Ghosh <[email protected]> > Co-developed-by: JawaharBalaji Thirumalaisamy <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: JawaharBalaji Thirumalaisamy <[email protected]> > Co-developed-by: Avadhut Naik <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Avadhut Naik <[email protected]> > Co-developed-by: Santhanakrishnan Balraj <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Santhanakrishnan Balraj <[email protected]> > Co-developed-by: Brian Mak <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Brian Mak <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Sanman Pradhan <[email protected]> > --- I get delivery errors for the following addresses. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] meaning they are quite obviously _not_ involved in the patch approval path. Please drop those addresses. Also, per Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst: Any further SoBs (Signed-off-by:'s) following the author's SoB are from people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took as it was propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with the first SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author. Does the above SoB sequence really reflect the approval patch for this patch ? Thanks, Guenter