Re: [PATCH 2/3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Specify supply property

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 02/09/2022 20:51, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> The top level RPMh nodes have a supply property, make sure to specify it
> so the patternProperties later that are keyed off of the PMIC version
> are properly honored. Without this, and the dt-binding containing
> additionalProperties: false, you will see the following when running
> make dt_binding_check:
> 
>       DTEX    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.example.dts
>       DTC     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.example.dtb
>       CHECK   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.example.dtb
>     /mnt/extrassd/git/linux-next/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.example.dtb: pm8998-rpmh-regulators: 'vdd-l7-l12-l14-l15-supply' does not match any of the regexes: '^(smps|ldo|lvs)[0-9]+$', 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
>             From schema: /mnt/extrassd/git/linux-next/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml
> 
> That supply pattern is intended to be considered correct for the
> qcom,pm8998-rpmh-regulators compatible, and is no longer complained
> about with the supply property described.

Which supply pattern?

> 
> Unfortunately this pattern is wide enough that it no longer complains
> when you bork the expected supply for a compatible. I.e. for
> qcom,pm8998-rpmh-regulators, if I change the example usage in the
> binding to:
> 
>         vdd-l0-l12-l14-l15-supply = <&pm8998_s5>;
> 
> I get no warning, when really it should be of the pattern:
> 
>         vdd-l7-l12-l14-l15-supply = <&pm8998_s5>;
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@xxxxxxxxxx>

No, you basically reverse the change I did, without actually addressing
my intentions in that commit. If you want to revert it, please make a
proper revert and explain why such revert is needed.

Best regards,
Krzysztof