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: <201206211717.46142.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:17:45 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	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 Thursday 21 June 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
>   Show Details
>   On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 02:50:35PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > It seems that the drivers that are changed to use this could also try to
> > describe the individual regulators completely, by moving the contents
> > of e.g. ab8500_regulator_info into the device tree, but having the string
> > identifier with an in-kernel table makes sense when there is only one
> > such table.
> 
> I'm not that big a fan of moving all the data into device tree as it
> means that you need even more parsing code and you need to update the
> device trees for every board out there every time you want to add
> support for a new feature which doesn't seem like a win.  Right now with
> the DT kept in the kernel it's not so bad but if we ever do start
> distributing it separately it becomes more of an issue.

Right. It's certainly a trade-off. If a company makes 100 SoCs that
all have similar-but-different regulators, then it should be clear
win to have the driver be very abstract and fed with DT data for
configuragtion.

> I'm also not sure if the tooling works well for allowing people to
> include standard DTs for chips and add new properties to nodes for the
> board specific configuration, though I think I've seen a few things
> which suggested that was dealt with reasonably well.

It should never be necessary to add board-specific properties in the
nodes that describe the SoC specific bits. What I was referring to
is just moving the data that currently resides in the regulator
driver into DT.

	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/