On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:33:12AM +0100, Robert Marko wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:41 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ...requiring it doesn't seem useful. All the other > > regulator-specific properties shouldn't be required either, > > unless the user specifies a voltage range we won't allow changes > > at all which should be safe and the name is purely cosmetic. > Are bindings even required at all here then? Even if there's no specific properties you still need the compatible string and documentation that it should use the generic regulator binding. This should be trivial but it means that we can do things like validate system DTs.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
