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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20210615152620.GH5149@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20210615152620.GH5149@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:35:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrthc_6rXt1UscKTQnctFXw0XjReEF5bqCGot2n=ChKaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM: domain: use per-genpd lockdep class
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 17:26, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, I am referring to the binding.

Let's see where we end up with this. My concern at this point is that
it could spread to more users, which would make it even more difficult
to remove.

Kind regards
Uffe