On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:12:35PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > I understand from a pure regulators' correctness point of view, > ENABLE_CTL should be the one checked there, so I can change the patch > as you suggested, but there seems to be some performance penalty > there. I thought the goal was to have the performance penalty to ensure that the regulator had actually started? > > > The WARN_ON? This was suggested by Bjorn to catch the case where the > > > DT binding for a PMIC instantiates only one of the regulators. > > No, this whole loop - why this whole match and get child stuff? > This loop mechanism is what I saw in the other qcom regulators > upstream, so thought it was an acceptable way. > For the two children nodes, do you recommend another mechanism to get > and validate both nodes? I don't understand what you mean by "two children nodes" here?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
