[PATCH] media: i2c: adv7343: fix the DT binding properties

[Prabhakar Lad]

Hi Sylwester,

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki
<s.nawrocki at samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On 09/20/2013 10:11 AM, Prabhakar Lad wrote:
>> OK I will, just send out a fix up patch which fixes the mismatch between
>> names for the rc-cycle, and later send out a patch which removes the
>> platform data usage for next release with proper DT bindings.
>
> I think the binding need to be fully corrected now, I just meant to not
> touch the board file, i.e. leave non-dt support unchanged.
>
Ok

>> I'm OK with making regulator properties as optional, But still it would
>> change the meaning of what DT is, we know that the VDD/VDD_IO .. etc
>> pins are required properties (but still making them as optional) :-(
>>
>> I think there might several devices where this situation may arise so
>> just thinking of a alternative solution.
>>
>> say we have property 'software-regulator' which takes true/false(0/1)
>> If set to true we make the regulators as required property or else we
>> assume it is handled and ignore it ?
>
> I don't think this is a good idea. You would have to add a similar platform
> data flag for non-dt, it doesn't sound right. I can see two options here:
>
> 1. Make the regulator properties mandatory and, e.g. define a fixed
>    voltage GPIO regulator in DT with an empty 'gpio' property. Then
>    pass a phandle to that regulator in the adv7343 *-supply properties.
>    For non-dt similarly a fixed voltage regulator(s) and voltage
>    supplies  would need to be defined in the board files.
>
> 2. Make the properties optional and use (devm_)regulator_get_optional()
>    calls in the driver (a recently added function). I must admit I don't
>    fully understand description of this function, it currently looks
>    pretty much same as (devm_)regulator_get(). Thus the driver would
>    need to be handling regulator supplies only when non ERR_PTR() is
>    returned from regulator_get_optional() and otherwise assume a non
>    critical error. There is already quite a few example occurrences of
>    regulator_get_optional() usage.
>
Thanks for pointing it I'll choose option 2 and post the patch.

Regards,
--Prabhakar Lad