On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 05:22:49PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > a very large number of regulators, it may not be too bad in practice. If > I were to maintain the regulator subsystem I'd probably want a > centralized implementation there, but that's certainly a personal > preference, at least partly. We already have some generic platform data for regulators so if it doesn't want to define anything custom all a driver has to do is forward that struct on to the core for handling, otherwise it just has to pick the generic struct out of whatever custom thing it defines. > On a side note, this RFC looks quite similar to what the GPIO subsystem > does, which I personally consider nice as differences between regulator > and GPIO in these areas are confusing for users. My pushback here is that if all we're doing is providing a mechanism to match platform data with firmware provided devices we shouldn't be implementing it per API in the first place, we should have a generic mechanism for system level quirking to pass platform data to devices which works with anything - it could also absorb a lot of the DMI based quirking we have in drivers already which boil down to using a DMI match to pick some platform data.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
