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: <4FE229BF.4080109@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:51:27 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>, lrg@...com,
	rob.herring@...xeda.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, lee.jones@...aro.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 06/20/2012 01:46 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 07:24:09PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
>> 1. What is it that the new property can express that cannot
>> already be expressed by using the phandle.
> 
> As well as being able to refer to the object from within the device
> tree we also need to be able to tell what the object represents -
> we have a bunch of regulators in an array under a node for a PMIC
> and we want to know which regulator on the physical device each
> array entry corresponds to.  Previously this was being done by
> parsing the phandle name but that

s/phandle name/node name/ in that line I think.

At least, I don't think it's common to refer to nodes as phandles;
phandles are usually the values used at "client" sites to refer to
nodes IIUC.

> means we can't have more than one device with the same set of
> names.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Yes, there are bindings defined already for all the relevant
> devices. Elsewhere in the binding document you'll see a list of all
> the regulators on the PMIC and the names by which the device tree
> binding knows them.
--
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/