linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM: bindings for drivers/mfd/twl4030-power.c

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]

Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:50:57 -0500
From:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	"Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
CC:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: bindings for drivers/mfd/twl4030-power.c

On 09/03/2014 01:45 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com> [140901 09:54]:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 25.08.2014 um 23:26 schrieb Tony Lindgren:
>>
>>> * Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com> [140817 08:46]:
>>>> I am trying to make ti,use_poweroff work on 3.17-rc1 for the GTA04 board.
>>>> Poweroff was broken for a while and I found that the driver isn't loaded at all.
>>>>
>>>> It appears to me that commit e7cd1d1eb16fcdf53001b926187a82f1f3e1a7e6
>>>> did rename the compatible entry from "ti,twl4030-power" to "ti,twl4030-power-reset"
>>>> but this was not documented in the bindings and of course our DT does not
>>>> match.
>>>>
>>>> Even your commit message talks about "ti,twl4030-power" although I can't find it
>>>> in the code.
>>>
>>> Hmm sorry did I accidentally remove ti,twl4030-power? If so, that should
>>> be added back for sure. Do you have a patch for that already?
>>
>> No, I have only updated our device tree because I don't know if it really should
>> be added back or not.
>>
>> As you say the "ti,twl4030-power" does not configure anything. So what
>> is it good for?
> 
> Only for the poweroff if "ti,use_poweroff" is set. Care to do a patch
> as you clearly have a use case to test it with?

Tony, we were talking about supporting ti,system-power-controller as
the standard way of stating poweroff control is by the PMIC. this
seems to be standard in various SoCs. use_poweroff seems to predate
that standardization. Should'nt we start using
ti,system-power-controller instead?

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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/