On 09/10/2013 12:18 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:44:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> OK, so I believe you're saying that the case of a chip with just >> a single power source, which absolutely must be present in HW for >> the chip to be powered, isn't appropriate for >> regulator_get_optional(). Something must always define a >> regulator for that power source, even if there is no external SW >> control over that power source. > > Well, it really should be mandatory - personally I don't think > it's sensible to add off-SoC chips without defining their > regulators, it's more trouble than it's worth to have to add them > later for all the time it takes to define the bindings. In IETF > terms it's a should. > >> We either allow the regulator to be optional (since SW control >> over the regulator is optional), or go back to every board file >> and DT and add a dummy regulator in (which then breaks DT ABI, >> and even ignoring that is a pain). > > The whole point of the way I'm changing the dummy support is to > allow us to gracefully cope with errors here so there's no > mandatory update even though strictly there should be one.
OK, so for the DT binding we should make vcc-supply a required property, yet the driver will still work OK if that property just happens to be missing (or e.g. when instantiated from a board file, and there's no regulator). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
