Date:   Wed, 08 Mar 2023 13:54:14 +0200
From:   Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@gmail.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
CC:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: ina2xx: add supply property
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <2b012916-3955-6c4a-a74b-1e86eaa19485@roeck-us.net>
References: <20230308094024.14115-1-clamor95@gmail.com> <20230308094024.14115-2-clamor95@gmail.com> <559c2588-e586-b4fb-97f8-5fe25bb79607@linaro.org> <CAPVz0n38LtyAqBP4GfC003xzaW78FaZ91zjdTNe46ormL5RY=Q@mail.gmail.com> <2b012916-3955-6c4a-a74b-1e86eaa19485@roeck-us.net>
Message-ID: <0BB6AD07-D102-4DF2-ADBD-C1A6473A1019@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


8 =D0=B1=D0=B5=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=B7=D0=BD=D1=8F 2023 =D1=80=2E 13:35:46 GMT+0=
2:00, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us=2Enet> =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=
=D0=B0=D0=B2(-=D0=BB=D0=B0):
>On 3/8/23 02:32, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>> =D1=81=D1=80, 8 =D0=B1=D0=B5=D1=80=2E 2023=E2=80=AF=D1=80=2E =D0=BE 12:=
27 Krzysztof Kozlowski
>> <krzysztof=2Ekozlowski@linaro=2Eorg> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5:
>>>=20
>>> On 08/03/2023 10:40, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>>>> Add supply property=2E
>>>=20
>>> You have entire commit msg to explain and give background, but instead
>>> there is just sentence duplicating subject=2E And since you did not
>>> explain anything, we have questions=2E=2E=2E like: INA238 does not hav=
e VDD,
>>> so this does not look correct=2E
>>>=20
>>=20
>> This is why a regulator is not mandatory=2E If ina238 does not have vdd
>> then one who needs ina238 may omit this prop=2E How about looking from
>> this perspective?
>>=20
>
>If a chip does not have VDD, the driver should not even try to get it
>for that chip=2E INS238 is supported by a different driver, so that does
>not require special code, but it needs to be spelled out in the devicetre=
e
>bindings=2E Devicetree has a means to specify if a property is valid for
>a given device=2E
>
>Having said this, as it turns out, _none_ of the chips supported by
>the ina2xx and the ina238 drivers have VDD=2E All of them have Vs, and
>all but INA219 have Vbus=2E The bindings don't even explain which one
>of those is supposed to refer to "VDD"=2E
>

So you refer to vdd as to a real name=2E Now I understand this misundersta=
nd=2E Regulator I am interested in is Vs=2E Since you confirmed that Vs is =
supported by all ina2xx there should be no contraversions further=2E

>Also, regulator_get_optional() returns -ENODEV if CONFIG_REGULATOR
>is not enabled, so it isn't entirely optional=2E We can not suddenly fail
>to load the driver on systems with CONFIG_REGULATOR=3Dn, so some conditio=
nal
>code will unfortunately be necessary=2E
>
>Guenter
>

Hm, then Lars-Peter Clausen suggestion should be applicable in this case=
=2E

>>>=20
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Best regards,
>> Svyatoslav R=2E
>