[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9afce114-1a0e-a0be-c07b-a78740e2f108@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 08:03:58 -0400
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@...libre.com>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, chen.zhong@...iatek.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
fparent@...libre.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
lee@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] dt-bindings: regulator: Add binding schema for
mt6357 regulators
On 11/10/2022 05:30, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> Thanks for your review !
>
> >> +
> >> + properties:
> >> + regulator-name:
> >> + pattern: "^v(core|modem|pa|proc|s1)$"
> >
> > Why enforcing particular name of the regulator?
>
> The regulator names are forced to match with the datasheet names.
>
> I think it's a good practice to increase visibility between HW & SW.
Enforcing is not a good practice.
>
> Also, that keep consistency with other Mediatek PMIC schema.
So there is a bad practice and instead of fixing it, you align to it... No.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists