linux-kernel - Re: Regulator supplies when using Device Tree

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: <20120328100957.GD3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:09:57 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	rnayak@...com, lrg@...com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regulator supplies when using Device Tree

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 06:38:30PM -0700, Michael Bohan wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 6:00 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >Supplies are *always* specified using the name from the part data sheet,
> >anything to do with regulator-regulator supplies is a Linux
> >implementation detail.

> So before filling out the supply_name when calling
> regulator_register(), does that mean we should expect regulator
> drivers that optionally support supplies to always check with
> of_get_property()? And which name should we check? It sounds like

I have no idea what this means, sorry.

> the answer is that we should invent another binding to portray the
> name of the supply the driver should be checking against. But then
> it would seem silly to have two bindings that pertain to supply
> names.

Absolutely not, that would be broken.  The whole point here is that
supplies of all kinds are always requested with the name the chip uses
for the supply.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)