[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12c66ced-c4a4-3a4e-f84b-83edb9e3fc58@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:45:40 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] regulator: dt-bindings: maxim,max77693: convert to
dtschema
On 14/02/2022 17:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 06:50:16PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
>> + properties:
>> + regulator-name: true
>> + regulator-always-on: true
>> + regulator-boot-on: true
>
> Why are these specific generic regulator properties enumerated?
additionalProperties=false is used, so all properties, also ones from
regulator.yaml, have to be mentioned.
Why this approach was used? Because the hardware here is very limited,
so no other properties are expected. No other features are supported.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists