linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: dts: Add tps65090 FETs constraints

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53EB99EB.5020404@collabora.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:01:31 +0200
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>
CC:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Yuvaraj Kumar C D <yuvaraj.cd@...il.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: dts: Add tps65090 FETs constraints

Hello Stephen,

On 08/13/2014 06:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
> I'm worried that this file represents the limits of the PMIC itself, 
> whereas the DT should be representing the limits of the circuits that 
> the various PMIC regulators are attached to on the board.
> 
> For example:
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tps65090.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tps65090.dtsi
> 
>>   		tps65090_fet3: fet3 {
>> +			regulator-min-microvolt = <3000000>;
>> +			regulator-max-microvolt = <5500000>;
>>   		};
> 
> I guess that on some boards, this output rail might be attached to 
> devices that must run at 3.3V exactly, and on other boards it might be 
> attached to devices that must run at 5V exactly. The DT for those two 
> boards should each have regulator-{min,max}-microvolt set to the same 
> value, which describes the board requirements.
> 
> It feels dangerous/misleading to define the PMIC range by default. It 
> might lead people to think that since the property already has a defined 
> value, they don't need to think about what the correct value for their 
> board is, and hence not change the value in their board file.
> 

Yes, Mark already explained to me why this approach was broken so I've
dropped the whole series. Thanks a lot for your feedback.

Best regards,
Javier
--
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/