[PATCH RFC 0/2] simplefb: Add regulator handling support
From: Hans de Goede <hidden>
Date: 2015-10-14 11:32:09
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-fbdev, lkml
Hi, On 14-10-15 12:55, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:16:56AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:quoted
On 12-10-15 19:04, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:quoted
quoted
Now the DT bindings don't support a list of regulators directly, so I'm working around it by having a "num-supplies" property to specify the number of supply properties to check, and name the actual supplies as "vinN-supply".quoted
Hmm, I can see the need for a "supplies" property with a list of regulators in other use-cases (e.g. the generic mmc-pwrseq driver) too. Now as discussed we can simply do vin0-supply - vinN-supply properties and be done with it, but maybe we need to actually add support for a generic "supplies" property ?I really don't like having unnamed supplies, or supplies with names that don't correspond to the schematic names for the physical supplies. It makes it harder to go between the DT and the schematic and encourages bad practice on specific chip bindings which should be done properly since it's harder to tell if the binding is done correctly.
Ok.
Adding something with the pattern of parallel arrays of phandles and names properties that got introduced after the regulator bindings were done also means we need to go and update every single binding using regulators to document the new properties which is going to be tedious and require constant policing for a while. I'm also not a big fan of the pattern from a legibility point of view but that's a separate thing.
Oh no, I was not suggesting to have this replace how we currently do things, I was merely suggesting allowing to have a supplies list property for bindings where a list of (unnamed) supplies makes sense like simplefb. I fully agree that we do not want to see matching a supplies-names prop, if names are needed the old name-supply schema should be used just like it is today.
quoted
And if not then maybe we need a few generic helper devm helper function which takes a node, figures out how much vinN-supply properties there are and returns a dynamically allocated array containing references to all the regulators, or a PTR_ERR in case of err, at which point the caller is expected to fail the probe so that any successfully acquired regulators are released.I can see it for this sort of simplefb thing but I'm not sure how we'd discourage drivers for specific hardware from also using the same helper which then makes it easy to get sloppy board DTs which I'd expect to lead to hassle down the road as drivers try to use their supplies and find that actual DTs have things that don't correspond to reality in them. The nice thing about having drivers name the supplies they're expecting is that it makes describing the board as it really is much more the path of least resistance.
Ok, so as said I see some value in this for generic drivers like simplefb, mmc-pwrseq, but also the generic ahci-platform, ohci-platform and ehci-platform drivers, where often it is possible to use the generic driver (together with a soc specific phy driver) without needing to introduce new compatibles, as all we need is to specify a phy(s), bunch of clocks, resets, etc. It would be good IMHO if we could specify e.g. this is a generic ehci block, which needs this list of supplies to be enabled (note typically the supplies are tied to the phy, so maybe not the best example). I like your idea in your other mail where you suggest to actually use foo-supply and bar-supply names in the simplefb node, and then have some code simple iterate over all the properties and check for *-supply properties, so that the proper, schematic matching names can be used. But surely if we go this way having a helper for this so that others can re-use that likely not entirely trivial code is a good idea ? One user which comes to mind immediately here is the generic mmc-pwrseq driver. I agree that we need to be careful to not use a helper like this too much, but I do believe it will make sense to have it in some rare cases. We can put a big warning in both the header declaring it and above the implementation to use it scarcely. Regards, Hans