On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 20:36, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 08:32:09PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 18:45, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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). > > That "probably" there is doing some work, and if you're doing something > at the I2C core level (as it seems should be done) it needs to cope with > all possible controllers and devices. > > > > 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. > > Please see my suggestions elsewhere in the thread. Please excuse me. I missed the e-mail suggesting to move support for that into the core level. I'd second a request to handle the adapter->bus_regulator in the core code. Would you be ok with the 'external-sda-scl-supply' property? Would you demand that it's completely handled by the core layer (including DT parsing) or should we let a driver parse the DT property? -- With best wishes Dmitry
