[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201215092116.GE29321@kozik-lap>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:21:16 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Guido Günther <agx@...xcpu.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>,
Angus Ainslie <angus@...ea.ca>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
phone-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: imx8mq-librem5-devkit: Mark more
regulators as always-on
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 06:17:13PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> They power vital parts of the board and low power consumption is not
> really an issue here. It also brings things more in line with what
> Purism is using downstream.
I don't find it a proper explanation. Not all regulators power vital
parts of board. Having regulators always on makes people to skip adding
proper supplies thus not describing the HW properly.
Aligning with downstream without clear reason (just because) is also not
a good reason.
Please reduce the choice only to core regulators or describe it really
why they have to be always on.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists