[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YdRejDRYwoQbNY4f@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:49:48 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Watson Chow <watson.chow@...et.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: regulators: Add bindings for Maxim
MAX20086-MAX20089
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 02:26:45PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 11:11:23PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > + required:
> > > + - OUT1
> > > + - OUT2
> > Why are we requiring that there be machine constraints for the
> > individual regulators? There's already a problem with people just
> > using the maximum possible control a regulator has as the default for
> > devices without regard to what the specific system can support.
> Could you elaborate a bit, keeping in mind that I'm a newbie when it
> comes to the regulator framework ? :-)
Not really... the question is why we are marking these as required
rather than just letting them be omitted as we normally do for
individual regulators on a device. What purpose does it serve?
> How should I modify the DT bindings to match that correctly ?
Remove the required:.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists