[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210712133428.GD4435@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 14:34:28 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:01:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The software nodes shouldn't appear on its own in the generic code.
> When we use software nodes API in it, it means that we have tried
> other providers _explicitly_ and haven't found what we are looking for
> and hence we have to check if software nodes are providing the same.
> For example, here it's done that way:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.14-rc1/source/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c#L178.
> In all other cases it shouldn't be called explicitly.
But why? I'm not seeing the advantage over providing platform data
based on DMI quirks here, it seems like a bunch of work for no reason.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists