Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: ina2xx: add supply property

Svyatoslav Ryhel
2023-03-08T11:55:16Z

8 березня 2023 р. 13:35:46 GMT+02:00, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> написав(-ла):
>On 3/8/23 02:32, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>> ср, 8 бер. 2023 р. о 12:27 Krzysztof Kozlowski
>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> пише:
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2023 10:40, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>>>> Add supply property.
>>>
>>> You have entire commit msg to explain and give background, but instead
>>> there is just sentence duplicating subject. And since you did not
>>> explain anything, we have questions... like: INA238 does not have VDD,
>>> so this does not look correct.
>>>
>>
>> This is why a regulator is not mandatory. If ina238 does not have vdd
>> then one who needs ina238 may omit this prop. How about looking from
>> this perspective?
>>
>
>If a chip does not have VDD, the driver should not even try to get it
>for that chip. INS238 is supported by a different driver, so that does
>not require special code, but it needs to be spelled out in the devicetree
>bindings. Devicetree has a means to specify if a property is valid for
>a given device.
>
>Having said this, as it turns out, _none_ of the chips supported by
>the ina2xx and the ina238 drivers have VDD. All of them have Vs, and
>all but INA219 have Vbus. The bindings don't even explain which one
>of those is supposed to refer to "VDD".
>

So you refer to vdd as to a real name. Now I understand this misunderstand. Regulator I am interested in is Vs. Since you confirmed that Vs is supported by all ina2xx there should be no contraversions further.

>Also, regulator_get_optional() returns -ENODEV if CONFIG_REGULATOR
>is not enabled, so it isn't entirely optional. We can not suddenly fail
>to load the driver on systems with CONFIG_REGULATOR=n, so some conditional
>code will unfortunately be necessary.
>
>Guenter
>

Hm, then Lars-Peter Clausen suggestion should be applicable in this case.

>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Svyatoslav R.
>