On Thu, 2024-02-22 at 17:54 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Nuno Sá wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-02-22 at 15:40 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 01:55:56PM +0100, Nuno Sa wrote: > > > > Add a property for the VDD power supply regulator. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml | 2 > > > > ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml > > > > index dbb85135fd66..8aae867a770a 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml > > > > @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ properties: > > > > interrupts: > > > > maxItems: 1 > > > > > > > > + vdd-supply: true > > > > > > Although technically an ABI break, should we make this supply required? > > > It is, at the end of the day, required by the hardware for operation. > > > > > > > I thought about it but then realized it could break some existing users > > which is > > never a nice thing. > > Could you explain what scenario it actually breaks a system (not > produces warnings with dtbs_check)? Oh, I guess I could not explain myself :). I did not meant breaking the system (I'm aware of the dummy regulator) but I meant exactly what you mention above about dtbs_check. Like, if someone already validated a devicetree against the current bindings, that same devicetree will fail to validate now right? And I had the idea that we should not allow that... If not the case, I'm perfectly fine in making the supply required. - Nuno Sá >
