On Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 02:34:02PM +0000, Roman Vivchar wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Thompson > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2026 at 09:58:48PM +0200, Roman Vivchar via B4 Relay > > > wrote: > > > > + led-max-microamp: > > > > + minimum: 5000 > > > > + maximum: 29800 > > > > + default: 20200 > > > > + > > > > + vin-supply: true > > > > + > > > > +required: > > > > + - compatible > > > > + - reg > > > > + - vin-supply > > > > > > Why is vin-supply required? > > > > > > > The chip cannot function without VIN power supply. Even if it's on the > > always-on power rail on certain board, there's always a chance it might be > > accidentally left disabled on the other. It's better to document supply in > > the bindings as far as I understand. > > You haven't just documented the binding, you have also made the property > mandatory by adding it to required. > > So what I am asking is why is this property listed as required. You > didn't implement the driver in a way that makes the supply mandatory. Not sure I follow. In the driver I've used devm_regulator_get_enable(), rather than _optional(), since my understanding is that the non-optional helper is a standard kernel API for required supplies (with regulator core warning and fallback to dummy regulator in case DT omits it). Do you suggest dropping vin-supply from required: ? On my board it's connected to an always-on supply, though I can't tell about others. I can proceed with this if the DT maintainers are okay with that. > > Daniel. >
