On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 19/05/2022 13:31, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:55:28AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >> On 18/05/2022 22:09, Corentin Labbe wrote: > > >>> + regulators: > > >>> + description: > > >>> + List of phandle to regulators needed for the PHY > > >> I don't understand that... is your PHY defining the regulators or using > > >> supplies? If it needs a regulator (as a supply), you need to document > > >> supplies, using existing bindings. > > > They're trying to have a generic driver which works with any random PHY > > > so the binding has no idea what supplies it might need. > > OK, that makes sense, but then question is why not using existing > > naming, so "supplies" and "supply-names"? > I'm not saying it is not possible, but in general, the names are not > interesting. All that is needed is that they are all on, or > potentially all off to save power on shutdown. We don't care how many > there are, or what order they are enabled. I think Krzysztof is referring to the name of the property rather than the contents of the -names property there.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
