linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node

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: <523AF3F5.1030909@nvidia.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:24:13 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"sameo@...ux.intel.com" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"pawel.moll@....com" <pawel.moll@....com>,
	"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"swarren@...dotorg.org" <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"rob@...dley.net" <rob@...dley.net>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices

On Thursday 19 September 2013 05:52 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be worth
>>>>> breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they do,
>>>>> then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you do
>>>>> not require sub-nodes. The MFD core will ensure the sub-devices are
>>>>> probed and there is no requirement for the of_node to be assigned.
>>>> You do see some reusable IP blocks (like the regualtors on the wm831x
>>>> PMICs for example, they're repeated blocks) which can be reused but
>>>> generally they have a register base as part of the binding.  Personally
>>>> if it's just a property or two I'd probably just put them on the root
>>>> node for the device.
>>> Agreed. Besides, there doesn't seem to be *any* sub-device properties
>>> defined in the binding document. So what are you trying to achieve
>>> with the child nodes?
>> I wanted to have the DT like:
>>
>> as3722 {
>>                  compatible = "ams,as3722";
>>                  reg = <0x40>;
>>
>>                  #interrupt-controller;
>>                  .....
>>
>>
>>                  regulators {
>>                              ldo1-in-supply = <..>;
>>                              ....
>>                              sd0 {
>>                                      regulator-name = "vdd-cpu";
>>                                      .....
>>                              };
>>                              sd1 {
>>                                      regulator-name = "vdd-ddr";
>>                                      .....
>>                              };
>>                              ....
>>              };
>> };
>>
>> And regulator driver should get the regulator node by their
>> pdev->dev.of_node.
>> Currently, in most of driver, we are having the code on regulator
>> driver to get "regulators" node from parent node which I want to
>> avoid.
> Ah, I see. Yes, I believe the regulators should have their own node,
> complete with a compatible string. To have each regulator listed
> separately in the parent node seems a little messy. Just out of
> interest, how many regulators are we talking about here?
>
There is 7 DCDC step down and 10 LDOs.
It is more readable if sub-module properties are grouped and defined on 
different sub-node in place of having this in single parent node.


--
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/