Hi, On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 10:41:14PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 10:36 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 12:56:16PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 12:05, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The merge strategy seems reasonable to me. But I am fine with that > > > > whatever works for Mark. > > > > > Mark, any update on this? > > > > > If easier, you could also just ack the regulator patch (patch1), and > > > can just take it all via my tree. > > > > I'm still deciding what I think about the regulator patch, I can see why > > it's wanted in this situation but it's also an invitation to misuse by > > drivers just blindly requesting all supplies and not caring if things > > work. > > I suppose an alternative is to flag which power domains actually need > a regulator supply. The MediaTek power domain driver does this. If you look at patch 6/7, which actually makes use of devm_of_regulator_get() you will notice that I did actually flag which power domains have/need a regulator. > There's still the issue of backwards compatibility with older device > trees that are missing said supply though. Exactly :) As far as I can see the same misuse potential also exists for the plain devm_regulator_get() version. Greetings, -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
