linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] regulator: dt: add policy to have property "regulator-compatible"

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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:03:27 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
	rob.herring@...xeda.com, arnd@...db.de, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
	lrg@...com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] regulator: dt: add policy to have property "regulator-compatible"

On 06/19/2012 11:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:43:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/19/2012 08:28 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> 
>>> +  The regulator is matched with the regulator-compatible.
> 
>> That last sentence should be true for any chip containing
>> multiple regulators and using the standard regulator binding. As
>> such, shouldn't that property be part of regulator.txt, rather
>> than each individual regulator chip's binding document?
> 
> No, there's more than one way to skin this cat.  We can either
> have something like this where there's a single DT node for all
> regulators on the device or we can have an MFD where the regulators
> all appear separately.  This is certainly what the former case
> should be using but it's less clear for the latter.

Well, I expected the language to be something along the lines of:

Optional properties:
...
- regulator-compatible: If a regulator chip contains multiple
regulators, and if the chip's binding contains a child node that
describes each regulator, then this property indicates which regulator
this child node is intended to configure.

... although I guess you'd need something to differentiate the
MFD-style vs. plain initdata-style mechanisms

So while as you say regulator.txt might not mandate that this be the
only method of handling multiple child nodes, shouldn't it document
this method as /a/ method in a central location to avoid all the
bindings that make use of this feature from duplicating the documentation?
--
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/