Le Fri, May 20, 2022 at 09:57:26AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit :

On 19/05/2022 17:49, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 19/05/2022 13:31, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:55:28AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 18/05/2022 22:09, Corentin Labbe wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+  regulators:
+    description:
+       List of phandle to regulators needed for the PHY

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

I don't understand that... is your PHY defining the regulators or using
supplies? If it needs a regulator (as a supply), you need to document
supplies, using existing bindings.

quoted

quoted

quoted

They're trying to have a generic driver which works with any random PHY
so the binding has no idea what supplies it might need.

quoted

quoted

OK, that makes sense, but then question is why not using existing
naming, so "supplies" and "supply-names"?

quoted

I'm not saying it is not possible, but in general, the names are not
interesting. All that is needed is that they are all on, or
potentially all off to save power on shutdown. We don't care how many
there are, or what order they are enabled.

I think Krzysztof is referring to the name of the property rather than
the contents of the -names property there.

Yes, exactly. Existing pattern for single regulator supply is
"xxx-supply", so why this uses a bit different pattern instead of
something more consistent ("supplies" and "supply-names")?

I agree that supplies and supply-names are better.
But in another answer Rob is against it, so if I understand well, we are stuck to use individual xxx-supply.
I will try to create a new regulator_get_bulk_all() which scan all properties matching xxx-supply