linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] regulator: axp20x: Update the bindings to use a local parent regulator

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]

Date:	Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:58:36 +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 3/5] regulator: axp20x: Update the bindings to use a
 local parent regulator

On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 06:05:52PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:49:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This sounds like you are passing the MFD child device into the regulator
> > API when you should be passing the parent device in.

> We're passing the device coming from the platform_device that is
> passed in probe, that has been created by mfd_add_device, which is
> indeed the child device from the MFD device. So we should always use
> the platform device parent's instead?

Yes.

> > For electrical engineering reasons it's unlikely that the supplies are
> > actually floating but yes, they are mandatory.  This is an issue with
> > registering one device for the entire regulator subsystem on the PMIC,
> > it interacts somewhat poorly with deferred probe.  However for systems
> > with full constraints like DT and ACPI ones it should be mostly
> > sidestepped since the if there is no supply mapped a dummy supply will
> > be substituted.

> Yes, they are actually tied to the ground, but it's still something
> meaningless, that I guess shouldn't be expressed in the DT?

Probably, that does seem like a valid case for omitting them.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)