Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] devicetree: bindings: Properly document micrel ks8851 SPI chips

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:44:35PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 05/28/14 10:12, Mark Brown wrote:

> > If the supply must always be physically present the bindings should be
> > specified as it being mandatory and the code written in that fashion; as
> > an extension Linux will put a dummy in but this is attempting to handle
> > incorrect DTs.  This means we have functional error handling in cases
> > where there is something to worry about and simplifies the code using
> > the regulator.

> Ok, you're saying the opposite of Rob. Should it be required or optional
> in the DT binding?

I'm saying it should be required.  The implementation accepts it as an
extension (a recent extension at that).

> Ok. Dave M has already picked up all these patches so I'll send a patch
> to replace regulator_get_optional() with regulator_get() and fix up the
> error handling unless I hear otherwise.

Yes, please.  I'm much more worried about the abuse of
regulator_get_optional() than the binding.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature