Hi Prabhakar, On Monday 30 September 2013 18:57:01 Prabhakar Lad wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Prabhakar Lad wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >> On 09/20/2013 10:11 AM, Prabhakar Lad wrote: > >>> OK I will, just send out a fix up patch which fixes the mismatch between > >>> names for the rc-cycle, and later send out a patch which removes the > >>> platform data usage for next release with proper DT bindings. > >> > >> I think the binding need to be fully corrected now, I just meant to not > >> touch the board file, i.e. leave non-dt support unchanged. > > > > Ok > > > >>> I'm OK with making regulator properties as optional, But still it would > >>> change the meaning of what DT is, we know that the VDD/VDD_IO .. etc > >>> pins are required properties (but still making them as optional) :-( > >>> > >>> I think there might several devices where this situation may arise so > >>> just thinking of a alternative solution. > >>> > >>> say we have property 'software-regulator' which takes true/false(0/1) > >>> If set to true we make the regulators as required property or else we > >>> assume it is handled and ignore it ? > >> > >> I don't think this is a good idea. You would have to add a similar > >> platform data flag for non-dt, it doesn't sound right. I can see two > >> options here: > >> > >> 1. Make the regulator properties mandatory and, e.g. define a fixed > >> voltage GPIO regulator in DT with an empty 'gpio' property. Then > >> pass a phandle to that regulator in the adv7343 *-supply properties. > >> For non-dt similarly a fixed voltage regulator(s) and voltage > >> supplies would need to be defined in the board files. > >> > >> 2. Make the properties optional and use (devm_)regulator_get_optional() > >> calls in the driver (a recently added function). I must admit I don't > >> fully understand description of this function, it currently looks > >> pretty much same as (devm_)regulator_get(). Thus the driver would > >> need to be handling regulator supplies only when non ERR_PTR() is > >> returned from regulator_get_optional() and otherwise assume a non > >> critical error. There is already quite a few example occurrences of > >> regulator_get_optional() usage. > > The same question arises in case of the clock, The adv7343 encoder has two > input clocks CLKIN_A and CLKIN_B. I case of da850 EVM the clock source to > adv7343 encoder is fixed source which is enabled by default so none of the > bridge nor the adv7343 driver cares of the clock to enable/disable. So in > this case should I be registering (v4l2_clk_register() / > v4l2_clk_unregister()) a dummy clock in the bridge driver or in the board > file ? The fixed clock (which is a real clock, not a dummy clock) should be registered in board file, preferably using the common clock framework if that's available on your platform. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
