On 12/07/2022 18:12, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > Hi Krzysztof > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 05:32:45PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12/07/2022 17:25, Jacopo Mondi wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof >>> could you have a look at the below question ? >> >> Sorry, there was a bunch of quoted text without end. When you reply >> under quote, please remove the rest of the quote. None of us have a lot >> of time to waste on scrolling emails... >> > > I should have kept a counter of the times I've been told "please do > not remove context, I'm so busy I do not have time to read the whole > thread" and "please remove context, I'm so busy I cannot read the > whole email". > > After 5 years of kernel development I would now know what to do. I never got the first one, only the second nags. :) (...) >>>> Should supplies be made mandatory ? Sensors are often powered by fixed >>>> rails. Do we want DTS writers to create "fixed-regulators" for all of >>>> them ? The fact the regulator framework creates dummies if there's no >>>> entry in .dts for a regulator makes me think it's fine to have them >>>> optional, but I understand how Linux works should not be an indication >>>> of how a bindings should look like. >>>> >>> >>> This question ^ :) >> >> My generic answer for generic devices would be - if resource is >> physically required (one need to connect the wire), I would say it >> should be also required in the bindings. This also forces driver >> developer to think about these resources and might result on >> portable/better code. >> >> However your point is correct that it might create many "fake" >> regulators, because pretty often these are fixed on the board and not >> controllable. Therefore I am fine with not requiring them - to adjust >> the bindings to real life cases. > > Tommaso if you can re-send this one with the supplies dropped I think > the series is still in time for being collected for this merge window > (Sakari to confirm this). Sure. In either case please keep my review-by tag. Best regards, Krzysztof
