Hi, On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 01:42:54 +0000 Robin Gong wrote: > On 二, 2018-07-03 at 08:10 -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > Hi Anson, > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 4:44 AM, Anson Huang <anson.huang@xxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > It is NOT easy to identify which switch is critical or NOT, and > > > different platforms > > > have different board design, it will introduce many platform > > > specified code, so I think > > > just revert the pfuze100 switch enable/disable patch should be OK > > > for now. > > I have sent the pfuze100 regulator patch revert and it is linux-next > > now. Should probably reach 4.18-rc4. > > > > > > > > After a couple of release cycles, add the pfuze100 switch > > > enable/disable patch > > > back to support this feature, I believe users should switch to new > > > dtb with "regulator-always-on" > > > existing already. > > That will still break old dtb compatibility. > > > > You cannot force users to use "regulator-always-on" and the old dtbs > > need to always work. > > > > So whatever new feature you need to introduce it needs to be done in > > such a way that the existing dtb's will continue working. > But actually existing dtb is not right since the critical power rail > missing 'regulator-always-on'. It's a fix patch for dts, not related > with following dtb/kernel break rules, just a simple dts patch. Why > should we make promise for the wrong dtbs? > Because they are living in the outside world on real devices. Lothar Waßmann -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
