[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGb2v65ahUB_Q+HPFV6B-UqWCbCNLdGz58BGo9iHRhVyf1ruZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:41:14 +0800
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
Adrián Martínez Larumbe <adrian.larumbe@...labora.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Fix RK3588 GPU domain
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 10:36 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 12:56:16PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 12:05, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> > > The merge strategy seems reasonable to me. But I am fine with that
> > > whatever works for Mark.
>
> > Mark, any update on this?
>
> > If easier, you could also just ack the regulator patch (patch1), and
> > can just take it all via my tree.
>
> I'm still deciding what I think about the regulator patch, I can see why
> it's wanted in this situation but it's also an invitation to misuse by
> drivers just blindly requesting all supplies and not caring if things
> work.
I suppose an alternative is to flag which power domains actually need
a regulator supply. The MediaTek power domain driver does this.
There's still the issue of backwards compatibility with older device
trees that are missing said supply though.
ChenYu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists