On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:44:18AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

Few drivers have a need of getting regulator supplies without knowing
their names:
1. The Simple Framebuffer driver works on setup provided by bootloader
   (outside of scope of kernel);
2. Generic power sequence driver may be attached to any device node.

Add a Device Tree helper for parsing "-supply" properties and returning
allocated bulk regulator consumers.

I'm still very concerned that this is just an invitation to people to
write half baked regulator consumers and half baked DTs to go along with
it, making it a standard API that doesn't have big red flags on it that
will flag up when "normal" drivers use it is not good.  Right now this
just looks like a standard API and people are going to just start using
it.  If we are going to do this perhaps we need a separate header or
something to help flag this up.

In the case of power sequences I'd expect the sequences to perform
operations on named supplies - the core shouldn't know what the supplies
are but the thing specifying the sequence should.

quoted

 drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c       | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/regulator/of_regulator.h | 13 +++++
 2 files changed, 99 insertions(+)

The external interface shouldn't be DT specific, the Intel people are
busy importing all of DT into ACPI

Well, not really.

If you are referring to the pinctrl proposal discussed recently, that
was a proposal from one group at Intel and AFAICS it has been
abandoned.

so they'll doubtless want an ACPI version.

That is possible, though, so I agree that the external interface
should not be DT-specific.