From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: a.hajda@samsung.com (Andrzej Hajda)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:22:29 +0100
Subject: [RFC 04/15] regulator: add restrack support
In-Reply-To: <20141211134327.GO11285@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1418226513-14105-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com>
 <1418226513-14105-5-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com>
 <20141210160720.GS11764@sirena.org.uk> <548976D2.7080005@samsung.com>
 <20141211125837.GV11764@sirena.org.uk>
 <20141211134327.GO11285@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <548AA5C5.4060204@samsung.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 12/11/2014 02:43 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:58:37PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> I'd expect someone reading the change in the regulator API to have at
>> least some idea how this fits in with the rest of the API and how to use
>> it, and probably more importantly I'd expect to be able to understand
>> why this is DT only.
> 
> Yep.
> 
> This is a repetitive problem, and I fully agree with your concern about
> stuff which is supposed to be arch-independent being designed with only
> DT in mind.
> 
> New core kernel features should *not* be designed with only DT in mind -
> DT is not the only firmware description language which the kernel
> supports.  Folk need to understand that if they design a new arch
> independent kernel feature where the sole use case is with DT, that new
> feature is probably going to get rejected, especially when it's
> something as generic as resource tracking.
> 
> The world is not DT only.
> 

OK. I will post next version of patchset with resource/provider lookup
left to frameworks (regulators, clock, etc), this way it will be fully
firmware agnostic. I will add also better description of the framework.

Regards
Andrzej