linux-kernel - Re: Regulator supplies when using Device Tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:00:06 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	rnayak@...com, lrg@...com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regulator supplies when using Device Tree

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 06:17:59PM -0700, Michael Bohan wrote:

> I'm curious if there was a reason we didn't standardize on a binding
> name for regulator supplies when using Device Tree. This appears to
> cause duplicated code for regulator drivers that support devices
> that may or may not have supplies specified.

Supplies are *always* specified using the name from the part data sheet,
anything to do with regulator-regulator supplies is a Linux
implementation detail.

> Also, I'm curious why we need two pointers for the supply name.
> There's currently regulator_desc->supply_name, recently added for
> Device Tree, and then the old init_data->supply_regulator. Is there
> a need for both?

We can't just break the build for systems using supply_regulator.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)