linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:33:16 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a
 deprecated property

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:28:07PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

> > This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are
> > controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator
> > nodes don't have a reg property in this case.

> > By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt
> > and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use
> > the node-name@...t-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document.

> > AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses
> > but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says.

> Any opinions on this?

I just don't care, this is just syntactic noise which has no practical
meaning as far as I can tell.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)