linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node

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:	Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:22:40 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"sameo@...ux.intel.com" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"pawel.moll@....com" <pawel.moll@....com>,
	"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"swarren@...dotorg.org" <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"rob@...dley.net" <rob@...dley.net>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices

> >>>Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be worth
> >>>breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they do,
> >>>then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you do
> >>>not require sub-nodes. The MFD core will ensure the sub-devices are
> >>>probed and there is no requirement for the of_node to be assigned.
> >>You do see some reusable IP blocks (like the regualtors on the wm831x
> >>PMICs for example, they're repeated blocks) which can be reused but
> >>generally they have a register base as part of the binding.  Personally
> >>if it's just a property or two I'd probably just put them on the root
> >>node for the device.
> >Agreed. Besides, there doesn't seem to be *any* sub-device properties
> >defined in the binding document. So what are you trying to achieve
> >with the child nodes?
> 
> I wanted to have the DT like:
> 
> as3722 {
>                 compatible = "ams,as3722";
>                 reg = <0x40>;
> 
>                 #interrupt-controller;
>                 .....
> 
> 
>                 regulators {
>                             ldo1-in-supply = <..>;
>                             ....
>                             sd0 {
>                                     regulator-name = "vdd-cpu";
>                                     .....
>                             };
>                             sd1 {
>                                     regulator-name = "vdd-ddr";
>                                     .....
>                             };
>                             ....
>             };
> };
> 
> And regulator driver should get the regulator node by their
> pdev->dev.of_node.
> Currently, in most of driver, we are having the code on regulator
> driver to get "regulators" node from parent node which I want to
> avoid.

Ah, I see. Yes, I believe the regulators should have their own node,
complete with a compatible string. To have each regulator listed
separately in the parent node seems a little messy. Just out of
interest, how many regulators are we talking about here?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/