regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: dt-binding fixups

[PATCH 0/3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: dt-binding fixups

Posted by Andrew Halaney 3 years, 7 months ago

Hi,

This is my poor attempt at getting devicetree validation into a better
state for qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml. This is a follow-up to Johan's
request for this over here:

    https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/Yw8EE%2FESDUnIRf8P@hovoldconsulting.com/

In particular, I'm not certain patch 1 is the correct way to handle
things, and patch 2 makes validation too wide for the *-supply nodes.

I'd love any feedback here as I'm really not experienced in any of the
spaces (regulator, rpmh, or dt schema) so nit picking is welcomed.

Thanks in advance,
Andrew

Andrew Halaney (3):
  regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Use additionalProperties
  regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Specify supply property
  regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: Indicate regulator-allow-set-load
    dependencies

 .../bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml       | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
2.37.2

Re: [PATCH 0/3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,rpmh: dt-binding fixups

Posted by Andrew Halaney 3 years, 7 months ago

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 01:51:45PM -0500, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is my poor attempt at getting devicetree validation into a better
> state for qcom,rpmh-regulator.yaml. This is a follow-up to Johan's
> request for this over here:
> 
>     https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/Yw8EE%2FESDUnIRf8P@hovoldconsulting.com/
> 
> In particular, I'm not certain patch 1 is the correct way to handle
> things, and patch 2 makes validation too wide for the *-supply nodes.
> 
> I'd love any feedback here as I'm really not experienced in any of the
> spaces (regulator, rpmh, or dt schema) so nit picking is welcomed.

v2 posted over here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220906201959.69920-1-ahalaney@redhat.com/