linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/14] mfd: pxa-w1: MFD driver for PXA 1wire control + DS1WM chip

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]

Message-ID: <BANLkTinpFBfOEOR6Ox1ufEHZo3qwRq8zhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 14 May 2011 22:21:25 +0800
From:	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>
To:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...vell.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	a.zummo@...ertech.it, johnpol@....mipt.ru, cbou@...l.ru,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, lrg@...mlogic.co.uk,
	broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] mfd: pxa-w1: MFD driver for PXA 1wire control +
 DS1WM chip

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Haojian,
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:04:03PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> This driver provides registers and IRQ of PXA3xx chips to the ds1wm driver.
> I see why this is needed, but I really think the ds1wm driver should be
> converted to a regular platform device. The MFD driver below is just adding a
> useless middle layer between your platform code and the ds1wm one.
>
I'm OK to use the regulator platform device for ds1wm driver except
for one concern.
ds1wm driver is designed for mfd cell driver. I need to update it as
regulator platform
driver first. cell->enable() / cell->disable() is used to enable clock
for ds1wm driver.
So I need to change the API from cell->enable/disable to clk_enable()
/ clk_disable().

But the key issue is that there's no common structure for clkdev. Now
clkdev is only
designed for deeply machine depend.

>From my view is that we need a common structure for clkdev. Then mfd driver can
get benefit from this. Some client driver can be written as regulator
platform device.
And mfd driver can use them seamless. What's your opinion?

Best Regards
Haojian
--
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/