On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:17 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:36:07PM +0800, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
>
> > + adap->bus_regulator = devm_regulator_get(&adap->dev, "bus");
> > + if (IS_ERR(adap->bus_regulator)) {
> > + res = PTR_ERR(adap->bus_regulator);
> > + goto out_reg;
> > + }
>
> Idiomatically supplies should be named as they are by the chip datasheet
> rather than just a generic name like this, and I'm guessing that systems
> that have supplies like this will often already have something
> requesting the supply (eg, it's quite common for consumer drivers to do
> this) under that name. I can see this being a useful thing to factor
> out into the core but it seems like it'd be better to have it enabled by
> having the controllers (or devices) pass a supply name (or possibly
> requested regulator) to the core rather than by just hard coding a name
> in the core so bindings look as expected.
>
I'll move the regulator request into device instead of core in the
next version. Thanks.
> I do also wonder if it's better to put the feature on the clients rather
> than the controller, I don't think it makes much difference though.
