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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130924135522.GA16407@lee--X1>
Date:	Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:55:22 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	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>,
	"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

> >> 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,
> 
> The use of a "regulators" node to keep all the regulator configuration
> in one place seems fine...
> 
> > complete with a compatible string.
> 
> ... but I see not reason why that node has to have a separate compatible
> property, or /has/ to have a separate driver.
> 
> I think having a compatible value in this node would only be required if
> the HW block that implements those registers is actually expected to be
> shared between n different chips, and hence it's likely that you'd get
> re-use out of a separate binding, driver, etc.
> 
> It's perfectly reasonable for the regulator MFD driver to know that the
> binding for the top-level PMIC node has a regulators child node, and go
> find it by name, and read whatever properties/nodes it needs directly
> out of it. Writing code that way in no ways implies a need for a
> compatible value.

Sounds fine.

> > 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?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/