linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 5/6] drivers: boot_constraint: Add initial DT bindings

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, 17 Jul 2017 12:34:07 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Shiraz Hashim <shashim@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/6] drivers: boot_constraint: Add initial DT bindings

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:06:08PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-07-17, 16:28, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Display is a pretty well known use case here. Do you have other
> > examples in mind?
> 
> No, I don't.
> 
> @Stephen: Do you have more cases like this for your Qcom products ?
> 
> > Other cases I've seen are automotive with keeping
> > the backup camera going and CAN bus handling. Though my new car has a
> > flicker shortly after coming on, so I guess the handoff doesn't have
> > to be completely seemless. :)
> 
> :)
> 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +       mmc: mmc@0x0 {
> > > +               ...
> > > +               ...
> > > +               vmmc-supply = <&twl_reg1>;
> > > +               vmmcaux-supply = <&twl_reg2>;
> > > +               boot-constraint-supplies = "vmmc", "vmmcaux";
> > > +               boot-constraint-uV = <1800000 2000000>, /* vmmc */
> > > +                                    <2000000 2000000>; /* vmmcaux */
> > 
> > No. I don't like how this is going to extend to all the other bindings
> > people are going to want constraints for. We don't need a parallel set
> > of properties for each type of binding.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> > I'm not convinced that we need a general solution for what's probably
> > a handful of things that need a handoff versus just re-initialize.
> 
> What about keeping the first four patches (mostly) as it is and adding
> these constraints from a platform specific constraints driver ?
> 
> Will that be acceptable ?

Meaning no DT binding? Then I don't care (from a DT perspective).

Rob