linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] runtime interpreted power sequences

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:	Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:21:57 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To:	Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] runtime interpreted power sequences

On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 05:00:13PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 07:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >Oh I see. That's a little confusing. Why not just reference the relevant
> >resources directly in each step; something more like:
> >
> >		gpio@1 {
> >			action = "enable-gpio";
> >			gpio = <&gpio 1 0>;
> >		};
> >
> >I guess that might make parsing/building a little harder, since you'd
> >have to detect when you'd already done gpio_request() on a given GPIO
> >and not repeat it or something like that, but to me this makes the DT a
> >lot easier to comprehend.
> 
> I tried to move towards having the phandles directly in the
> sequences themselves - that reminded me why I did not do that in the
> first place. Let's say we have a sequence like this (reg property
> omitted on purpose):
> 
> 	power-on-sequence {
> 		step@0 {
> 			regulator = <&backlight_reg>;
> 			enable;
> 		};
> 		step@1 {
> 			delay = <10000>;
> 		};
> 		step@2 {
> 			pwm = <&pwm 2 5000000>;
> 			enable;
> 		};
> 		step@3 {
> 			gpio = <&gpio 28 0>;
> 			enable;
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> The problem is, how do we turn these phandles into the resource of
> interest. The type of the resource can be infered by the name of the
> property. The hard part is resolving the resource from the phandle -
> it seems like the API just does not allow to do this. GPIO has
> of_get_named_gpio, but AFAIK there are no equivalent for regulator
> consumer and PWM: the only way to use the DT with them is through
> get_regulator and get_pwm which work at the device level.
> 
> Or is there a way that I overlooked?

No, you are right. Perhaps we should add exported functions that do the
equivalent of of_pwm_request() or the regulator_dev_lookup() and
of_get_regulator() pair.

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped