Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] regulator: tps65912: Add regulator driver for the TPS65912 PMIC

From: Mark Brown
Date: Tue Nov 10 2015 - 04:58:26 EST

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:41:20AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 03:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >There are cases where it's useful where we're abstracting something and
> >gaining some meaningful reuse. This really does not appear to be one of
> >those cases, there are no parameters in the DT and the compatible string
> >is the full device name.

> As before I see no reason to make that call now and limit ourselves.

To repeat *yet* *again* the point is that putting the current Linux
driver model into the DT is limiting our future selves.

> >You do not need to populate it. There is no value in populating it and
> >as previously discussed putting the Linux driver model into DT can be
> >actively harmful if we change our idea of how we should model things.

> The dev passed to regulator_register needs to have of_node populated for
> your OF init_data helper to work. Devices with OF tables can just pass
> their own dev. Others have to use their parents' nodes, this is a
> workaround, OF devices should be probed with their of_node pre-populated.

This is not a workaroud, the only reason you think it is a workaround is
the desire to directly represent the Linux device model in the DT.

> >>>Please stop this. I don't understand why you are pushing so hard to put
> >>>the Linux device model representation of the device into DT but it's
> >>>getting very repetitive.

> >>I'm not pushing anything, this is how other sub-nodes of MFD devices are

> >Every time we go through this we finish the discussion and then you come
> >back with yet another excuse for trying to push the current Linux device
> >model into the DT or another version of the patch with the same problem.

> I keep finding different problems, do you expect me to ignore them?

You are making minor restatements of the same thing over and over again
which ignore the main feedback.

> >The fact that other people have merged imperfect code into the kernel is
> >not a good reason to merge even more of it when we have better tools.
> >Looking at that binding I'm seeing no reason why any of the subfunctions
> >should have compatible strings (and if we're going down the route you're
> >trying to go down we really ought to have something in the binding for
> >at least an interrupt controller in there as well...).

> These are not "subfunctions" they are full drivers, they only need
> register accessors passed in, they do not call the core and the core
> does not call them.

To repeat *yet* *again* they are groupings of functionality which happen
to represent the way Linux models devices right now. There's no
generality in there, it's just a dump of the current Linux model of the
functions into the DT.

> If your problem is with the DT binding for this or other MFDs, then
> nack *them* and explain to everyone why what they are doing is wrong
> and why regulators should be special cases. Blocking the regulator
> drivers to force a change in DT is not going to fix this issue.

Of course this is a negative review of the binding! What on earth did
you think my feedback meant? The driver and the binding go together.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature