linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] regulator: helper routine to extract regulator_init

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: <20111104212216.GA5756@quad.lixom.net>
Date:	Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:22:16 -0700
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
	patches@...aro.org, tony@...mide.com,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, lrg@...com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] regulator: helper routine to extract
 regulator_init_data

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:14:48PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:29:05PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 06:54:24PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> 
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> > > +Voltage/Current Regulators
> 
> > There should be a mandatory compatible field here, right? I.e. a topmost
> > generic one, "regulator" or similar.
> 
> It's not really useful for the regulator subsystem to directly bind to
> the device as something needs to actually control it, the idea is that
> this binding is included by reference in the bindings for specific
> devices.

Right, same goes for many other devices. Some use a toplevel compatible field,
some do not. Either way, not a big deal if you don't want to include one.

> > Also, lower-caps is common instead of V and A.
> 
> On the other hand the case is pretty important for SI units

Yeah, true. The fixed regulators used microvolt instead, which could be a good
way to do it.

> > > +- <name>-supply: phandle to the parent supply/regulator node
> 
> > Having a fixed name here instead of a free form string would probably be a good
> > idea?
> 
> The name will be fixed by the individual device bindings, this is
> specifying the general form of a supply property.  Each device binding
> will define the set of supplies that the device can use.

Ah, ok. It shouldn't be a part of this binding then and instead be added
to the bindings for the consumers.


-Olof
--
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/