On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:54 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:48:04AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:26 AM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > (though > > > TBH given how entirely virtual this stuff us it seems odd that we'd be > > > going for a bus). > > > I'm going for a bus because class doesn't have a distinction between > > "device has been added" and "device is ready if these things happen". > > There's nothing to say that a "bus" has to be a real hardware bus. > > Sure, but then there's the push to stop using platform devices for > virtual devices - this feels similar. That's why we wouldn't be using the platform bus :) I was suggesting changing regulator_class to regulator_bus and being able to delete some of the regulator core code because device links would take care of the same functionality. But this is just improving maintenance so maybe I should focus more on the feature TODOs first :) -Saravana
