On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:37:06AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/09/2022 22:49, 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. > > > > In general this is true for any regulators that are setting modes > > instead of setting a load directly, for example RPMH regulators. A > > counter example would be RPM based regulators, which set a load > > change directly instead of a mode change. In the RPM case > > regulator-allow-set-load alone is sufficient to describe the regulator > > (the regulator can change its output current, here's the new load), > > but in the RPMH case what valid operating modes exist must also be > > stated to properly describe the regulator (the new load is this, what > > is the optimum mode for this regulator with that load, let's change to > > that mode now). > > > > 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 > > Andrew, > > This patch was merged therefore we started seeing such warnings. Any > plans to actually fix them? Didn't Doug already do that? https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220829164952.2672848-1-dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ Johan
