Hello, On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 12:43:21PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote: > Am 04.12.18 um 09:52 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: > > But for the review you are right, I added the dt people to Cc for them > > to comment. In v2 Matthew also noted that he would prefer to handle the > > situation when both over-current-active-low and over-current-active-high > > were given differently. I think we don't need that as this is a case of > > "broken dt" and it doesn't matter much what is done then. (With my patch > > we're configuring for active high in that case.) A feedback here would > > be great, too. > > AFAIR such invalid settings should be catched with a proper error > message and abort of the probing.
I remember a review commend from Rob[1]: "It is not really the kernel's job to validate crap in bindings. If you put [strange things] in your DT, then the kernel may or may not handle that." If this applies here, too, the current patches are fine. Best regards Uwe [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8776441/ -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
