On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 03:19:59PM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote: > For RPMH regulators it doesn't make sense to indicate > regulator-allow-set-load without saying what modes you can switch to, > so be sure to indicate a dependency on regulator-allowed-modes. > > With this in place devicetree validation can catch issues like this: > > /mnt/extrassd/git/linux-next/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-hdk.dtb: pm8350-rpmh-regulators: ldo5: 'regulator-allowed-modes' is a dependency of 'regulator-allow-set-load' > From schema: /mnt/extrassd/git/linux-next/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml > > Suggested-by: Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@xxxxxxxxxx> Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan+kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220902185148.635292-1-ahalaney@xxxxxxxxxx/ > Changes since v1: > - Dropped first two patches in the series as they were user error > (thanks Krzysztof for highlighting this!) > - No change in the remaining patch > > Krzysztof also asked if this patch in particular should apply to other > regulators, which I think it should for those regulator's who implement > set_mode(). Unfortunately I don't know of a good way to get that > information in order to apply it at a broader scope for devicetree > regulator validation. At least with this in place RPMH users can get > better coverage... if someone has suggestions for how to broaden the > scope I'm all ears! I guess the commit message could have tried to capture that is feature of the hardware (as Linux implementation details shouldn't impact the binding). And apparently there are regulators that do not need this (e.g. RPM). Johan
