Re: [PATCH 5/6] dt-bindings: iio: temperature: ltc2983: document power supply

["Nuno Sá" <noname.nuno@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2024-02-22 at 17:54 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-02-22 at 15:40 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 01:55:56PM +0100, Nuno Sa wrote:
> > > > Add a property for the VDD power supply regulator.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@analog.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml | 2
> > > > ++
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git
> > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml
> > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml
> > > > index dbb85135fd66..8aae867a770a 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/temperature/adi,ltc2983.yaml
> > > > @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ properties:
> > > >    interrupts:
> > > >      maxItems: 1
> > > >  
> > > > +  vdd-supply: true
> > > 
> > > Although technically an ABI break, should we make this supply required?
> > > It is, at the end of the day, required by the hardware for operation.
> > > 
> > 
> > I thought about it but then realized it could break some existing users
> > which is
> > never a nice thing.
> 
> Could you explain what scenario it actually breaks a system (not
> produces warnings with dtbs_check)?

Oh, I guess I could not explain myself :). I did not meant breaking the system
(I'm aware of the dummy regulator) but I meant exactly what you mention above
about dtbs_check. Like, if someone already validated a devicetree against the
current bindings, that same devicetree will fail to validate now right? And I
had the idea that we should not allow that... If not the case, I'm perfectly
fine in making the supply required.

- Nuno Sá

>