linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] regulator: dt: regulator match by 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]

Message-Id: <201206201924.09618.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:24:09 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc:	broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, lrg@...com,
	rob.herring@...xeda.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, lee.jones@...aro.org,
	swarren@...dotorg.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] regulator: dt: regulator match by regulator-compatible

On Wednesday 20 June 2012, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Match the device's regulators with the property of
> "regulator-compatible" of each regulator node.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
> ---
> Changes from V1:
> - In place of adding new api, modify the existing api of_regulator_match() to
> look regulator-compatible for matching.
> 
> Changes from V2:
> - Add break if the regualtor match found.

I've read the entire series a few times and I still can't figure out
why you're doing it. *Please* describe what the change is good for,
now what you are doing in it.

All I can tell from the patch and/or description right now is that
you are adding a third identifier next the phandle and the
"regulalator-name", but not why this is a good idea.

Specifically, please explain these two things in the changelog:

1. What is it that the new property can express that cannot already
be expressed by using the phandle.

2. Why is it called "regulator-compatible"? If it's similar to the
"compatible" property, don't you have to have a binding for each
possible string? If it's not related to the "compatible" property,
why is it named in a similar way?

	Arnd
--
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/