On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 06:33:09PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 16:16, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 08:31:30PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > > > On 2/7/22 4:39 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > The bindings are ABI, it doesn't seem like a good idea to add new ABI as > > > > a temporary bodge. > It's not a temporary bodge. The i2c-core piece was reverted, but not > the mediatek driver code/bindings. > Vladimir has provided a replacement for the i2c-core code handling the > vbus-regulator. When thee code will be back, the code from i2c-cci can > be removed. The bindings will be the same. I would hope it's a temporary thing given the namespace collision issues... > > There's also the option of representing this as a separate thing on or > > part of the bus. > 4) (which you have implemented in your patch). Add support for the > vbus-supplies property for the I2C CCI controllers. > This is the option I'd vote for. Do these controllers actually have a supply called vbus?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
