On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:42 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 26/10/2021 15:53, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 06:53:53AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

quoted

Add device tree bindings for the new power sequencer subsystem.
Consumers would reference pwrseq nodes using "foo-pwrseq" properties.
Providers would use '#pwrseq-cells' property to declare the amount of
cells in the pwrseq specifier.

Please use get_maintainers.pl.

This is not a pattern I want to encourage, so NAK on a common binding.

Could you please spend a few more words, describing what is not
encouraged? The whole foo-subsys/#subsys-cells structure?

No, that's generally how common provider/consumer style bindings work.

Or just specifying the common binding?

If we could do it again, I would not have mmc pwrseq binding. The
properties belong in the device's node. So don't generalize the mmc
pwrseq binding.

It's a kernel problem if the firmware says there's a device on a
'discoverable' bus and the kernel can't discover it. I know you have
the added complication of a device with 2 interfaces, but please,
let's solve one problem at a time.

Rob