linux-kernel - Re: [RESUBMIT PATCH v4 7/8] regulator: sky81452: Add compatible string for device binding

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: <20141022102723.GL2344@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:27:23 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Gyungoh Yoo <gyungoh@...il.com>
Cc:	sameo@...ux.intel.com, lee.jones@...aro.org, jg1.han@...sung.com,
	cooloney@...il.com, lgirdwood@...il.com, jack.yoo@...worksinc.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	grant.likely@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	pawel.moll@....com, heiko@...ech.de, jason@...edaemon.net,
	shawn.guo@...escale.com, treding@...dia.com,
	florian.vaussard@...l.ch, trivial@...nel.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
	andrew@...n.ch, jic23@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RESUBMIT PATCH v4 7/8] regulator: sky81452: Add compatible
 string for device binding

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:10:24PM +0900, Gyungoh Yoo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:26:05PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote:

> > The thing I'm seeing is that the binding for your device with the
> > subnode looks very much like the device trees of devices with multiple
> > regulators.  The fact that you only have one regulator is a bit
> > difference but not that much.  It seems like drivers should fit into one
> > of two patterns: either the regulator is described in the root node for
> > the device for single purpose devices or there should be a collection of
> > regulators like is supported with this helper API.  Having a collection
> > with only one node doesn't seem to be a problem in any way.

> Thank you for your kind comments.
> My understanding is getting better.

> For my clear understanding:
> I think the original designed which I wanted to design is similar
> with arizona-ldo1.c
> It seems that this is 1st pattern your explained above.
> Can I ask what is different between arizona-ldo1.c and
> this sky81452-regulator.c?
> I think both are designed under root node.

Were that code being written today I'd probably be asking for it to use
a regulators subnode to be consistent with everything else, it's a
slightly older driver and sometimes we've not spotted the patterns when
they're added, once we get to the point of adding the helpers as we have
now things are definitely getting baked in.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)