[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YnknbtzsBQrIV0hx@Red>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 16:38:38 +0200
From: LABBE Corentin <clabbe@...libre.com>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc: alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, andrew@...n.ch, broonie@...nel.org,
calvin.johnson@....nxp.com, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
jernej.skrabec@...il.com, joabreu@...opsys.com,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, kuba@...nel.org,
lgirdwood@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, pabeni@...hat.com,
peppe.cavallaro@...com, robh+dt@...nel.org, samuel@...lland.org,
wens@...e.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] net: stmmac: dwmac-sun8i: remove regulator
Le Mon, May 09, 2022 at 03:09:07PM +0100, Andre Przywara a écrit :
> On Mon, 9 May 2022 07:48:53 +0000
> Corentin Labbe <clabbe@...libre.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Now regulator is handled by phy core, there is no need to handle it in
> > stmmac driver.
>
> I don't think you can do that, since we definitely need to maintain
> compatibility with *older* DTs.
> Is there a real need for this patch, or is it just a cleanup?
> I mean we should be able to keep both approaches in, and the respective
> board and DT version selects which it is using.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre
>
It is just a cleanup. But yes, probably keeping it will be necessary for easy compatibility.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists