On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:44:18AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Few drivers have a need of getting regulator supplies without knowing >> their names: >> 1. The Simple Framebuffer driver works on setup provided by bootloader >> (outside of scope of kernel); >> 2. Generic power sequence driver may be attached to any device node. >> >> Add a Device Tree helper for parsing "-supply" properties and returning >> allocated bulk regulator consumers. > > I'm still very concerned that this is just an invitation to people to > write half baked regulator consumers and half baked DTs to go along with > it, making it a standard API that doesn't have big red flags on it that > will flag up when "normal" drivers use it is not good. Right now this > just looks like a standard API and people are going to just start using > it. If we are going to do this perhaps we need a separate header or > something to help flag this up. > > In the case of power sequences I'd expect the sequences to perform > operations on named supplies - the core shouldn't know what the supplies > are but the thing specifying the sequence should. > >> drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/regulator/of_regulator.h | 13 +++++ >> 2 files changed, 99 insertions(+) > > The external interface shouldn't be DT specific, the Intel people are > busy importing all of DT into ACPI Well, not really. If you are referring to the pinctrl proposal discussed recently, that was a proposal from one group at Intel and AFAICS it has been abandoned. > so they'll doubtless want an ACPI version. That is possible, though, so I agree that the external interface should not be DT-specific. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |