On 19/05/2022 17:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.
Yes, exactly. Existing pattern for single regulator supply is
"xxx-supply", so why this uses a bit different pattern instead of
something more consistent ("supplies" and "supply-names")?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
