Le Fri, May 20, 2022 at 09:57:26AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit :
> 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")?
>
I agree that supplies and supply-names are better.
But in another answer Rob is against it, so if I understand well, we are stuck to use individual xxx-supply.
I will try to create a new regulator_get_bulk_all() which scan all properties matching xxx-supply
