On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 18:45, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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... Which collision? CCI doesn't have a separate vbus power input (and probably never will). > > > > 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? No. It's a separate entity, a regulator-controller pull-up for the bus. So far we'd like to hear better suggestions. Using regulator-always-on doesn't sound like a good idea, it will increase unnecessary power drain. -- With best wishes Dmitry
