On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:34 PM Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Hi Mark,
v17 is sent here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/cover/20210309133131.1585838-1-hsinyi@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
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.
