On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 03:21:45PM +0000, Roman Vivchar wrote:
On Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Thompson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 02:34:02PM +0000, Roman Vivchar wrote:
quoted
Hi Daniel,
On Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Thompson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Nov 02, 2026 at 09:58:48PM +0200, Roman Vivchar via B4 Relay wrote:
quoted
+ led-max-microamp:
+ minimum: 5000
+ maximum: 29800
+ default: 20200
+
+ vin-supply: true
+
+required:
+ - compatible
+ - reg
+ - vin-supply
Why is vin-supply required?
The chip cannot function without VIN power supply. Even if it's on the
always-on power rail on certain board, there's always a chance it might be
accidentally left disabled on the other. It's better to document supply in
the bindings as far as I understand.
You haven't just documented the binding, you have also made the property
mandatory by adding it to required.
So what I am asking is why is this property listed as required. You
didn't implement the driver in a way that makes the supply mandatory.
Not sure I follow.
In the driver I've used devm_regulator_get_enable(), rather than _optional(),
since my understanding is that the non-optional helper is a standard kernel
API for required supplies (with regulator core warning and fallback to dummy
regulator in case DT omits it).
That dummy fallback essentially makes it optional. On a board with an
always-on supply then there is no need to include vin-supply in the
DTB. The driver will work just fine without it.
Do you suggest dropping vin-supply from required: ? On my board it's connected
to an always-on supply, though I can't tell about others. I can proceed with
this if the DT maintainers are okay with that.
Given your answers then, yes, vin-supply should not be in the required:
list (e.g. we don't want DT validation to fail for a DT that does not
include a vin-supply).
Daniel.