On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 09:07:49AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 8:43 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > Consider for example a BMC (IIRC that's what their specific product is),
> > a bench supply or some automated test equipment.  Part of the function
> > for these systems is to provide power to other systems which would be
> > represented as a root or wall supply in the description of the system
> > that actually uses the supply if it were described using DT.

> Didn't someone else have a similar use recently? Controlling some
> supply external to the system. I can't seem to find it now.

IIRC that was an earlier iteration of the same thing - it's been round
the houses a bit.  extcon seemed like it might be a home since these are
external connections from the system but in the end people didn't think
it looked like a good fit.

> In any case, it's not for you to describe, but Naresh, and in the
> binding and commit messages. But first we need to overcome proper
> usage of get_maintainers.pl. In response, to my first reply on v4, I
> have a second v4 sent privately today (and still only the vendor
> prefix). Sigh. AFAICT, for v1-v3, the only thing that made it to the
> list was the cover letters. Bottom line is this series has multiple
> problems and shouldn't have been applied yet.

I can drop it but I do think it's reasonable to be adding a vendor
binding for this, we don't seem to have enough people engaged to scope
out a generic binding confidently and TBH I've got a feeling we might
want multiple application specific generic bindings when we do have one.