On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:12:35PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote:

> I understand from a pure regulators' correctness point of view,
> ENABLE_CTL should be the one checked there, so I can change the patch
> as you suggested, but there seems to be some performance penalty
> there.

I thought the goal was to have the performance penalty to ensure that
the regulator had actually started?

> > > The WARN_ON? This was suggested by Bjorn to catch the case where the
> > > DT binding for a PMIC instantiates only one of the regulators.

> > No, this whole loop - why this whole match and get child stuff?

> This loop mechanism is what I saw in the other qcom regulators
> upstream, so thought it was an acceptable way.
> For the two children nodes, do you recommend another mechanism to get
> and validate both nodes?

I don't understand what you mean by "two children nodes" here?