From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yibin.gong@nxp.com (Robin Gong) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 01:42:54 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v1] ARM: dts: imx6sl-evk: keep sw4 always on In-Reply-To: References: <1530526335.15665.13.camel@nxp.com> <20180703053843.GC4348@dragon> Message-ID: <1530697336.15665.43.camel@nxp.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On ?, 2018-07-03 at 08:10 -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Anson, > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 4:44 AM, Anson Huang > wrote: > > > > > It is NOT easy to identify which switch is critical or NOT, and > > different platforms > > have different board design, it will introduce many platform > > specified code, so I think > > just revert the pfuze100 switch enable/disable patch should be OK > > for now. > I have sent the pfuze100 regulator patch revert and it is linux-next > now. Should probably reach 4.18-rc4. > > > > > After a couple of release cycles, add the pfuze100 switch > > enable/disable patch > > back to support this feature, I believe users should switch to new > > dtb with "regulator-always-on" > > existing already. > That will still break old dtb compatibility. > > You cannot force users to use "regulator-always-on" and the old dtbs > need to always work. > > So whatever new feature you need to introduce it needs to be done in > such a way that the existing dtb's will continue working. But actually existing dtb is not right since the critical power rail missing 'regulator-always-on'. It's a fix patch for dts, not related with following dtb/kernel break rules, just a simple dts patch. Why should we make promise for the wrong dtbs?