[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220906202525.s77kgjmptdm7cjtw@halaneylaptop>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 15:25:25 -0500
From: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
To: agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
broonie@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org, johan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: dt-binding fixups
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 01:51:45PM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is my poor attempt at getting devicetree validation into a better
> state for qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml. This is a follow-up to Johan's
> request for this over here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/Yw8EE%2FESDUnIRf8P@hovoldconsulting.com/
>
> In particular, I'm not certain patch 1 is the correct way to handle
> things, and patch 2 makes validation too wide for the *-supply nodes.
>
> I'd love any feedback here as I'm really not experienced in any of the
> spaces (regulator, rpmh, or dt schema) so nit picking is welcomed.
v2 posted over here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220906201959.69920-1-ahalaney@redhat.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists