linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] max77693: added device tree support

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: <2068495.b8bxEK36PI@flatron>
Date:	Fri, 23 Aug 2013 22:36:10 +0200
From:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
	"lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
	Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND..." <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] max77693: added device tree support

Hi Mark,

On Friday 23 of August 2013 15:14:33 Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:53:34PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > This patch adds only of_match_table.
> > There are no device specific properties.
> 
> Could you clarify what functionality this enables and what it doesn't,
> please?

This patch simply adds explicit OF match table for this device. Before, 
the driver could be matched only by a fallback to i2c_device_id table.

> This doesn't seem to enable support for the regulators described in the
> binding [1] (which from the looks of it needs proof-reading and possibly
> rework).
> 
> Are there any changes we might need in future to either support new
> functionality or to generalise the binding. e.g. do we need a regulator
> for the LED?
> 
> Given the binding has never been supported, are we happy now that it
> best represents the hardware, or are there avenues of improvement
> *before* it becomes ABI?

Well, documentation of the binding has been present in kernel tree since 
June, but I too think that we should review it and make sure it makes 
sense. I'll try to get some information on this chip at work, on Monday.

Best regards,
Tomasz

--
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/