Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-167252-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <74655775-a8e2-45f4-8a1b-8046dffa5520@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 07:54:21 +0300
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] dt-bindings: ROHM BD96801 PMIC regulators
To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
 Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
 Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1714478142.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
 <c747a3395a52bdb9b9697f814cd781fb0903b894.1714478142.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
 <20240502-vitalize-oat-ecbc14647df8@spud>
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240502-vitalize-oat-ecbc14647df8@spud>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Conor,

On 5/2/24 19:20, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 02:59:50PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> ROHM BD96801 is a highly configurable automotive grade PMIC. Introduce
>> DT bindings for the BD96801 regulators.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>> RFCv2 => v1
> 
> RFC is a status, not a version - ideally this would have been v3 and the
> next version v4.

Thanks for the clarification. I've always wondered if an RFC should be 
seen as a separate series. Previously I've ended up just dropping the 
RFC and pumping up the version. This time the switch from RFC => non RFC 
was somewhat radical as a lot of the features were dropped. Furthermore, 
I've developed the 'simple' version (this non RFC one) and 
'experimental' version (the RFC one) in separate branches - which made 
the separation even stronger in my mind - I probably started thinking 
these as two different patch series.

But, as I said, thanks for the clarification! I guess it's still better 
to make next version v2 (and not v4) to not add even more confusion...

>>      - Drop regulator-name pattern requirement
>>      - do not require regulator-name
> 
> 
> Krzysztof had some comments on the buck/ldo node names

I think Krzysztof pointed out that the regulator-name property should 
not match the data-sheet but the board. If he had something to say about 
the node names, then I've missed his comment!

> and on the
> initial value properties that I'm not sure if have been addressed, so
> gonna leave this series to him.

Thanks for pointing out I may have missed addressing some of his 
concerns. I though I fixed all issues he pointed to me but it may be I 
missed some - or accidentally dropped some change(s) when merging fixes 
from the 'experimental' branch to the 'simple'. I'll revise Krzysztof's 
feedback to the RFC before sending the next version!

Thanks!

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~