On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:25:49PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > I'm a little confused -- here is how I remember the chronology of the > "DT bindings" commit reviews, please correct me if I'm wrong: > o JimQ submitted a pullreq for using voltage regulators in the same > style as the existing "rockport" PCIe driver. > o After some deliberation, RobH preferred that the voltage regulators > should go into the PCIe subnode device's DT node. > o JimQ put the voltage regulators in the subnode device's DT node. > o MarkB didn't like the fact that the code did a global search for the > regulator since it could not provide the owning struct device* handle. > o RobH relented, and said that if it is just two specific and standard > voltage regulators, perhaps they can go in the parent DT node after > all. > o JimQ put the regulators back in the PCIe node. > o MarkB now wants the regulators to go back into the child node again? ...having pointed out a couple of times now that there's no physical requirement that the supplies be shared between slots never mind with the controller. Also note that as I've said depending on what the actual requirements of the controller node are you might want to have the regulators in both places, and further note that the driver does not have to actively use everything in the binding document (although if it's not using something that turns out to be a requirement it's likely to run into hardware where that causes bugs at some point). Frankly I'm not clear why you're trying to handle powering on PCI slots in a specific driver, surely PCI devices are PCI devices regardless of the controller?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
