linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911

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: <4FBBCA8F.3050903@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 11:19:11 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
CC:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
	"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dt: tegra: cardhu: register core regulator tps65911

On 05/22/2012 11:09 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2012 10:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 05/22/2012 07:05 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> Add device info for the PMIC device tps65911 in tegra-cardhu
>>> dts file. This device supports the multiple regulator rails,
>>> gpio, interrupts.
>> FYI, patch 1 in this series looks fine. Some comments below though:
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-cardhu.dts
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-cardhu.dts
>>> +        tps65911: tps65911@2d {
>>> +            compatible = "ti,tps65911";
>>> +            reg =<0x2d>;
>>> +
>>> +            #gpio-cells =<2>;
>>> +            gpio-controller;
>>> +
>>> +            regulators {
>>
>> Please add the following properties here:
>>
>>     #address-cells =<1>;
>>     #size-cells =<0>;
>>
>>> +                vdd1_reg: vdd1 {
>>
>> This node name should be "regulator", since nodes are generally named
>> after the class of object they represent. Since all the nodes will then
>> have the same name, you'll need to add a unit address ("@nnnn") to the
>> node name.
> 
> Nop, we can not do it. The node name should match with the name
> mentioned in driver otherwise the regulator node search will fail
> Following is the excerpt of the code:

Hmm. That seems wrong. I thought I had seen at least some regulator
bindings where these nodes included a name property so that the nodes
didn't need any particular name.

Olof, what are your thoughts here - do we need to fix the code so the
node names aren't relevant? IIRC, we have had to change some other
bindings due to the same issue.

...
>> Nitpicky, but the labels might be more logical as reg_vdd1 rather than
>> vdd1_reg, but not a big deal.
>>
>> So, please replace the line above with:
>>
>>     reg_vdd1: regulator@0 {
>>         reg =<0>;
>>
> 
> Why do we really require the reg at all?
> I dont think any usage of doing this.

I guess if these regulators are enabled at boot and always on, we don't
even need the labels for now; we could add labels later as/when drivers
begin to dynamically control the regulators.
--
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/