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:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:26:21 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM: domain: use per-genpd lockdep class
Message-ID: <20210615152620.GH5149@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20210611101540.3379937-1-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
 <20210611101540.3379937-3-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
 <CAPDyKFo5mUZZcPum9A5mniYSsbG2KBxqw628M622FaP+piG=Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA8EJprSj8FUuHkFUcinrbfd3oukeLqOivWianBrnt_9Si8ZRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPDyKFoMC_7kJx_Wb4LKgxvRCoqHYFtwsJ2b7Cr4OvjA94DtHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210615111012.GA5149@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAPDyKFreV-RPzweG8SqFQtvZMOyFbaG2+tMFKc2JkbEj+erb=g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AqCDj3hiknadvR6t"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFreV-RPzweG8SqFQtvZMOyFbaG2+tMFKc2JkbEj+erb=g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--AqCDj3hiknadvR6t
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 04:55:24PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 13:10, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:17:20PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:

> > > Beyond this, perhaps we should consider removing the
> > > "regulator-fixed-domain" DT property, as to avoid similar problems
> > > from cropping up?

> > > Mark, what do you think?

> > We need to maintain compatibility for existing users...

> Normally, yes, I would agree.

> In this case, it looks like there is only one user, which is somewhat
> broken in regards to this, so what's the point of keeping this around?

Only one user in mainline and you were just suggesting removing the
property (you mean binding I think?) - at the very least we'd need to
transition that upstream user away to something else before doing
anything.

--AqCDj3hiknadvR6t
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmDIxpwACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CjvQf/ZtO5g8Vauy1TwetzYXVFnoVsisCUiyhX/D5CXU0hLQIKFPPAxx5gqOCd
UAkVyyCPtCZS6a81dpQou5nrlB/xxa+fafbbHmszxCHMnlYLHe48KsbOUtCeTCVW
a0KaDBH26WeNQc9YJ5BEANBdi5ddUYog95M6tBhUuf8588jwNM+SVklhepZEcKGe
jdoUSOXdx5rh2+r0uaM3DsTP4Wq9gwrNZaMHQjSG8EoGWum0siwdxX6qUtwTezol
OXLYHMdC6fkYTLDd/W6jr0qxBuQEQP6nQnV7aBkWqklxtNbYxq2ep9OA5mY5DFbN
NLIIzxhA+NDD327u2oo/xTAn2TAMZA==
=Wq07
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--AqCDj3hiknadvR6t--