On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 09:36 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/17/22 02:23, Marcello Sylvester Bauer wrote:
> > Add optional regulator supply into PWBUS_REGULATOR macro. This
> > makes it
>
> The code doesn't look optional to me. What exactly is optional ?
I mean, it is optional to add a supply. It should not cause errors if
you don't. I should probably reword this, too.
>
> > possible to define a vin-supply in DT. Not defining a supply will
> > only
> > cause the following debug output:
> >
> > ```
> > Looking up vin-supply property in node [...] failed
> > ```
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> > b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> > index e0aa8aa46d8c..38f049d68d32 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
> > @@ -464,6 +464,7 @@ extern const struct regulator_ops
> > pmbus_regulator_ops;
> > #define PMBUS_REGULATOR(_name, _id) \
> > [_id] = { \
> > .name = (_name # _id), \
> > + .supply_name = "vin", \
> > .id = (_id), \
> > .of_match = of_match_ptr(_name # _id), \
> > .regulators_node = of_match_ptr("regulators"), \
>
> That seems to be quite far reaching. How does this affect / change
> behavior
> of existing systems which so far did not expect supply_name to be set
> ?
>
> Guenter
