On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:44:35PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 05/28/14 10:12, Mark Brown wrote: > > If the supply must always be physically present the bindings should be > > specified as it being mandatory and the code written in that fashion; as > > an extension Linux will put a dummy in but this is attempting to handle > > incorrect DTs. This means we have functional error handling in cases > > where there is something to worry about and simplifies the code using > > the regulator. > Ok, you're saying the opposite of Rob. Should it be required or optional > in the DT binding? I'm saying it should be required. The implementation accepts it as an extension (a recent extension at that). > Ok. Dave M has already picked up all these patches so I'll send a patch > to replace regulator_get_optional() with regulator_get() and fix up the > error handling unless I hear otherwise. Yes, please. I'm much more worried about the abuse of regulator_get_optional() than the binding.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
