On Monday 23 September 2013 08:18:52 Prabhakar Lad wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:

quoted

On 09/20/2013 10:11 AM, Prabhakar Lad wrote:

quoted

OK I will, just send out a fix up patch which fixes the mismatch between
names for the rc-cycle, and later send out a patch which removes the
platform data usage for next release with proper DT bindings.

I think the binding need to be fully corrected now, I just meant to not
touch the board file, i.e. leave non-dt support unchanged.

Ok

quoted

quoted

I'm OK with making regulator properties as optional, But still it would
change the meaning of what DT is, we know that the VDD/VDD_IO .. etc
pins are required properties (but still making them as optional) :-(

I think there might several devices where this situation may arise so
just thinking of a alternative solution.

say we have property 'software-regulator' which takes true/false(0/1)
If set to true we make the regulators as required property or else we
assume it is handled and ignore it ?

I don't think this is a good idea. You would have to add a similar
platform data flag for non-dt, it doesn't sound right. I can see two
options here:

1. Make the regulator properties mandatory and, e.g. define a fixed
   voltage GPIO regulator in DT with an empty 'gpio' property. Then
   pass a phandle to that regulator in the adv7343 *-supply properties.
   For non-dt similarly a fixed voltage regulator(s) and voltage
   supplies  would need to be defined in the board files.

2. Make the properties optional and use (devm_)regulator_get_optional()
   calls in the driver (a recently added function). I must admit I don't
   fully understand description of this function, it currently looks
   pretty much same as (devm_)regulator_get(). Thus the driver would
   need to be handling regulator supplies only when non ERR_PTR() is
   returned from regulator_get_optional() and otherwise assume a non
   critical error. There is already quite a few example occurrences of
   regulator_get_optional() usage.

Thanks for pointing it I'll choose option 2 and post the patch.

Isn't regulator_get_optional() intended for devices that can have supplies 
unconnected in normal use ? The ADV7343 supplies are mandatory from a hardware 
point of view, so I think we should use regulator_get(). Otherwise the driver 
won't be able to tell the difference between a regulator that isn't present 
yet (for instance because the regulator device/driver hasn't been probed yet), 
which should result in deferred probing, and an always-on regulator that has 
been left out.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart