On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:42 AM Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26/10/2021 15:53, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 06:53:53AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> Add device tree bindings for the new power sequencer subsystem. > >> Consumers would reference pwrseq nodes using "foo-pwrseq" properties. > >> Providers would use '#pwrseq-cells' property to declare the amount of > >> cells in the pwrseq specifier. > > > > Please use get_maintainers.pl. > > > > This is not a pattern I want to encourage, so NAK on a common binding. > > > Could you please spend a few more words, describing what is not > encouraged? The whole foo-subsys/#subsys-cells structure? No, that's generally how common provider/consumer style bindings work. > Or just specifying the common binding? If we could do it again, I would not have mmc pwrseq binding. The properties belong in the device's node. So don't generalize the mmc pwrseq binding. It's a kernel problem if the firmware says there's a device on a 'discoverable' bus and the kernel can't discover it. I know you have the added complication of a device with 2 interfaces, but please, let's solve one problem at a time. Rob
