[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241104161033.GA228709-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 10:10:33 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>, lars@...afoo.de,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, anshulusr@...il.com,
gustavograzs@...il.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] dt-bindings: iio: bosch,bme680: Add supply
properties
On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 10:46:46AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 03:33:15PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 14:13:09 +0100
> > Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Extend dt-binding for BME680 gas sensor device. The device incorporates
> > > as well temperature, pressure and relative humidity sensors.
> > This description should make it clear it is moving from trivial-devices.yaml
> >
> > dt-bindings: iio: bosch,bme680: Move from trivial-bindings and add missing supplies.
> >
> > Then say a little more on why you are moving it.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>
> >
> > There was an open question on the previous version about
> > setting the supplies as required (which I see you've removed).
> > My understanding previously was that it is fine to make that change
> > in a binding if it reflects supplies that are required to be enabled
> > for the device to function at all. If there were previously missing
> > that's a binding bug we should fix.
> >
> > I'd like a clarification from the DT binding maintainers on that.
> > Obviously doesn't work for other users of dt bindings but in
> > Linux this would be fine as they were already on for any board
> > that worked and the regulator framework will through us a fake
> > regulator for cases like this.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241022182451.00007ac0@Huawei.com/
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> That was Rob's objection so I will leave it to him, but putting my two
> cents in for Linux it is not an ABI break because missing regulator
> supplies are substituted with dummy ones. Unless something changed...
Shrug. I don't think we're entirely consistent on this. If we're saying
supplies are always required, then every device in trivial-devices.yaml
is wrong. Since Linux handles them missing, you can also argue that
supplies are never required.
I'd prefer not to special case regulators as an exception I have to
remember. I have some rudimentary ABI checking I'm working on that
checks for things like new required properties. Though it wouldn't catch
this particular change given it moves the schema.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists