linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] regulator: Enhance AXP209 DT 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: <20140603135630.GC31751@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:56:30 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	carlo@...one.org, Boris Brezillon <boris@...e-electrons.com>,
	lgirdwood@...il.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kevin.z.m.zh@...il.com, sunny@...winnertech.com,
	shuge@...winnertech.com, zhuzhenhua@...winnertech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] regulator: Enhance AXP209 DT support

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:09:38PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 07:47:52PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 07:11:04PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:

> > > This patchset modifies the regulator core and axp209 regulator driver
> > > to be able to set in each regulators sub-node the supply, that should
> > > be possible, given that it's documented as such in the bindings, but

> > It is?  We should fix that.

> From Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt:

>   - <name>-supply: phandle to the parent supply/regulator node

> With the example:
> 
>     xyzreg: regulator@0 {
>         regulator-min-microvolt = <1000000>;
>         regulator-max-microvolt = <2500000>;
>         regulator-always-on;
>         vin-supply = <&vin>;
>     };

> If not right, then it's strongly misleading.

That's misleading, the supplies are for the bit of silicon not some
subfunction on it.

> > No, we've been round this loop several times before.  This reduces
> > consistency in how we map supplies since the user has to work out which
> > subnode the supply is associated with and what it's called there instead
> > of being able to just look at the schematic and translate the supply
> > name into a property name.  It also means you have to map supplies into
> > multiple child nodes if the same supply is used in multiple places.

> Which might be what your schematics actually show. If you have a
> single input pin for each regulator, even if the name changes from one
> pin to another, you're still pretty much in this kind of construct.

That's very common, but I do expect that the supplies are all uniquely
named on the silicon so not a big deal and bear in mind that this is
not just about consistency between PMICs but also about consistency
between PMICs and other devices.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)