[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240608185121.31a40d62@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:51:21 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen
<lars@...afoo.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Kevin Hilman
<khilman@...libre.com>, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>, Martin
Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: iio: adc: amlogic,meson-saradc: add
optional power-domains
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:21:17 +0100
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 09:54:22AM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > On 05/06/2024 18:58, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:37:08AM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > > > On newer SoCs, the SAR ADC hardware can require a power-domain to operate,
> > > > add it as optional.
> > >
> > > What about the older socs that don't have power domains, the property is
> > > now usable there?
> >
> > Old SoCs doesn't necessarily have an associated power domain, or was handled
> > by firmware, does it harm if we make it optional for older ones as well ?
>
> I mean, really all of these devices have a power domain, even if the DT
> doesn't describe one as it's hardly gonna work without power, so the
> commit message just seems odd to me. I don't care enough to ask for a
> new commit message though.
> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Applied
Powered by blists - more mailing lists