Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Mar 2021 17:16:44 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        Bibby Hsieh <bibby.hsieh@mediatek.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 2/2] i2c: core: support bus regulator controlling in
 adapter
Message-ID: <20210308171644.GE4656@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20210308043607.957156-1-hsinyi@chromium.org>
 <20210308043607.957156-3-hsinyi@chromium.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sfyO1m2EN8ZOtJL6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210308043607.957156-3-hsinyi@chromium.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--sfyO1m2EN8ZOtJL6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:36:07PM +0800, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:

> +	adap->bus_regulator = devm_regulator_get(&adap->dev, "bus");
> +	if (IS_ERR(adap->bus_regulator)) {
> +		res = PTR_ERR(adap->bus_regulator);
> +		goto out_reg;
> +	}

Idiomatically supplies should be named as they are by the chip datasheet
rather than just a generic name like this, and I'm guessing that systems
that have supplies like this will often already have something
requesting the supply (eg, it's quite common for consumer drivers to do
this) under that name.  I can see this being a useful thing to factor
out into the core but it seems like it'd be better to have it enabled by
having the controllers (or devices) pass a supply name (or possibly
requested regulator) to the core rather than by just hard coding a name
in the core so bindings look as expected.

I do also wonder if it's better to put the feature on the clients rather
than the controller, I don't think it makes much difference though.

--sfyO1m2EN8ZOtJL6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmBGW/sACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DCqQf5AWoY9ts6hYYjbt4Rs4LUqzM+fet/NEq8b74WOnZgN0CV/Z14n1897bb6
NfPqKzN5/+39WvYaZN5Bm3DUG7DDbwtvzJY7Xhi33xDkvbE+EFNQH0CbGlE3CdbV
N5uGr7oYe7fhTzbj28R6Edv1Lc3ZRLR8iMlDGeA04KVgbXg3qP8lowfPkr+GqxjQ
f5ja8ZTnbG8DvmGAa4x8XT+B7WQ3EIFoeO9O2PiAjAHn0EY6h5EFPxaLJQ+1F6Rf
Fbtl11qFb/NaefGgEAYN17x2bn+8p1cDv4k6ljOUt07h2alTleDouzbQLQfNzQjH
oVohYzF4E6HpXzMqJkv7S3p46VrJwQ==
=VKuM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sfyO1m2EN8ZOtJL6--