On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:27:26PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 10/3/19 9:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:For most subsystems the intent is to reuse DT bindings on embedded ACPI
Why would we want to do that? We'd continue to support only DT systems,For instance few weeks ago we had a patch [0] in the LED core switching
just with code that's less obviously DT only and would need to put
checks in. I'm not seeing an upside here.
from using struct device's of_node property to fwnode for conveying
device property data. And this transition to fwnode property API can be
observed as a frequent pattern across subsystems.
systems via _DSD.
Recently there is an ongoing effort aiming to add generic support forConsumers should just be able to request a regulator without having to
handling regulators in the LED core [1], but it turns out to require
bringing back initialization of of_node property for
devm_regulator_get_optional() to work properly.
worry about how that's being provided - they should have no knowledge at
all of firmware bindings or platform data for defining this. If they
do that suggests there's an abstraction issue somewhere, what makes you
think that doing something with of_node is required?
Further, unless you have LEDs that work without power you probably
shouldn't be using _get_optional() for their supply. That interface is
intended only for supplies that may be physically absent.