On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 04:59:06PM +0100, Frieder Schrempf wrote: > On 28.11.24 6:37 PM, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 05:42:17PM +0100, Frieder Schrempf wrote: > >> From: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This reverts commit 27866e3e8a7e93494f8374f48061aa73ee46ceb2. > >> > >> It turned out that this feature was implemented based on > >> the wrong assumption that the SD_VSEL signal needs to be > >> controlled as GPIO in any case. > >> > >> In fact the straight-forward approach is to mux the signal > >> as USDHC_VSELECT and let the USDHC controller do the job. > >> > >> Most users never even used this property and the few who > >> did have been or are getting migrated to the alternative > >> approach. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Changes for v2: > >> * split revert into separate patch > >> --- > >> .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/nxp,pca9450-regulator.yaml | 5 ----- > >> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/nxp,pca9450-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/nxp,pca9450-regulator.yaml > >> index f8057bba747a5..79fc0baf5fa2f 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/nxp,pca9450-regulator.yaml > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/nxp,pca9450-regulator.yaml > >> @@ -77,11 +77,6 @@ properties: > >> > >> additionalProperties: false > >> > >> - sd-vsel-gpios: > >> - description: GPIO that is used to switch LDO5 between being configured by > >> - LDO5CTRL_L or LDO5CTRL_H register. Use this if the SD_VSEL signal is > >> - connected to a host GPIO. > > > > Your driver side of this, that I wasn't sent and cba downloading an > > mbox of is not backwards compatible. The code has been there for a few > > years, are you sure that there are no out of tree users or other OSes > > that use the property? > > Yes, this is not backwards compatible. I introduced the original meaning > for the sd-vsel-gpios property based on some misunderstanding of how the > hardware actually works. Therefore I'm quite sure that except for the > cases where someone copied my erroneous implementation into their > devicetree, nobody has really any reason to actually use this. > > In-tree all users have been removed (one fix still included in this > series). Of course we can't be fully sure that there isn't someone out > there having non-standard hardware (SD_VSEL not connected to > USDHC_VSELECT but to GPIO only) and using the old sd-vsel-gpios, but the > probability is very, very low. > > IMHO taking the small risk here is better than keeping the misleading > implementation which will likely cause confusion and failures in the > future. But of course that's not up to me to decide. Given that the !property case retains the behaviour from before, only those with the property are affected - which means if it does end up being problematic then it can be rectified at that point in time. > > tbh, I think all 3 of your dt-binding patches should be squashed rather > > than drip-feeding the conversion. It makes more sense as a single > > change, rather than splitting the rationales across 3 patches. > > Ok, if you like this better in one change I can squash these for the > next version. Sounds good, sorry again for the delay getting back to you.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
