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  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:	Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:14:43 +0900
From:	Gyungoh Yoo <gyungoh@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:27:23AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

I see. Thank you.

So, what do you think about DT like below?

sky81452@2c {
	compatible = "skyworks,sky81452";
	reg = <0x2c>;

	backlight {
		compatible = "skyworks,sky81452-backlight";
		name = "pwm-backlight";
		enable = <0x3F>;
		ignore-pwm;
	};

	regulator {
		compatible = "skyworks,sky81452-regulator";

		lout@0 {
			regulator-name = "LOUT";
			regulator-min-microvolt = <4500000>;
			regulator-max-microvolt = <8000000>;
		};
	};
};
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists