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:	Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:16:39 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	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>,
	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>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] runtime interpreted power sequences

On 08/05/2012 08:27 PM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 08/04/2012 11:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:15:46AM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
>>> On Fri 03 Aug 2012 03:11:12 AM JST, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> I missed some of the earlier bits of the thread here but why can't
>>>> we do
>>>> device based lookups?
...
> I think we only have two choices for this:
> 
> 1) Stick to the scheme where resources are declared at the device level,
> such as they can be referenced by name in the sub-nodes (basically what
> I did in this patch):
> 
> backlight {
>      compatible = "pwm-backlight";
>      ...
>      backlight-supply = <&backlight_reg>;
> 
>      power-on-sequence {
>          step@0 {
>              regulator = "backlight";
>              enable;
>          };
> 
> This would translate by a get_regulator(dev, "backlight") in the code
> which would be properly resolved.

Yes, upon reflection, that scheme does make sense. I withdraw the
comments I made re: whether it'd be better to just stick the phandles
into the steps.
--
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/