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: <4FC92990.5030104@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:44:00 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	"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 06/01/2012 02:40 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:23:24PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> However, Mark warned that changing this would be a bit painful 
>> because there are already users of the existing scheme. It looks 
>> like that's only tps65910 (which we haven't started using yet), 
>> db8500, and ab8500, so probably not that big a deal.
> 
> No, there's a bunch of others - some queued for -next, others open
>  coding the same scheme.  Any device with more than one regulator
> in a node should be using the same scheme.
> 
>> We could either augment struct of_regulator_match with an
>> integer ID field for each regulator (which would perhaps make it
>> slightly painful to write the nodes and keep the IDs matched up),
>> or add a new property
> 
> No, that's awful.  How's anyone supposed to read stuff like that? 
> The interrupt bindings are a disaster, not a model.
> 
>> to each regulator provider node e.g. regulator-id which
>> contained the name that the regulator driver knows the regulator
>> as (which would match struct of_regulator_match.name), since the
>> existing regulator-name property is used for semantically
>> different purposes.
> 
> Oh, ick.  This isn't nice.  If anything I'd be more inclined to
> put a named property in there and have drivers look for its
> presence. The presence of multiple name properties isn't nice.

Could you expand on "named property" a bit; I'm not quite sure what
you're getting at - literally a property with name "named" (which
would be the same as regulator-id under just a different property
name), or ...?

>>> vdd1_reg: regulator@0 {
> 
> Can't we use the right hand side of this?  It appears to just be 
> syntactic sugar without any current meaning.

The stuff to the right of @ is the "unit address" and must match the
value in the reg property. Using that was the first proposal I had
above (which I also didn't like as much)
--
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/