linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] ARM: dts: da850-evm: use phandles to extend nodes

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, 10 May 2018 20:49:17 +0530
From:   Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:     Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>
CC:     Adam Ford <adam.ford@...icpd.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] ARM: dts: da850-evm: use phandles to extend nodes

On Thursday 10 May 2018 08:38 PM, Adam Ford wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com> wrote:
>> On Monday 07 May 2018 06:07 PM, Adam Ford wrote:
>>> Many node labels in the device tree (like serial0, serial1, etc) are being
>>> redefined, so let's modernize the device tree by using phandles to
>>> extend the existing nodes.  This helps reduce the whitespace.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>
>>
>> I applied this without the pmic changes. I am not convinced about those.
>> The tps node is already being referred to as phandle. I am not sure
>> referring to each individual regulator using phandle is needed. Other
>> files like am335x-evm.dts don't do it as well.
> 
> I tested the regulator values and names after booting to see if the
> names and values matched the expected values. They did, so I am
> fairly confident it would have worked.

Not doubting that. But I am not sure if thats the "norm". Do you see any
other device-tree file doing this?

> 
>>
>> Another thing is whether we really need the tp6507x.dtsi file. It does
>> not seem to contain much and also da850-evm.dts is the only file
>> including it. So it seems pretty pointless to me.
> 
> Do you want me to do a patch that removes the  tp6507x.dtsi file and
> just sets up the
> PMIC from scratch within the da850-evm file?

I am fine with the plan, but not something urgent, IMO.

> 
>>
>> Here is what I committed.
> 
> Thank you.  I think looks cleaner this way, and more consistent with
> many of the other platforms and boards.

Yes.

Thanks,
Sekhar