linux-kernel - Re: [RFT v3 06/14] regulator: max77802: Remove support for board files

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:	Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:02:41 +0100
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
CC:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT v3 06/14] regulator: max77802: Remove support for board
 files

Hello Krzysztof,

On 10/30/2014 01:53 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> To me a intuitive structure would be:
> MFD device
>   |
>   - clock device
>      |
>      - clock1
>      - clock2
>   - regulator device
>      |
>      - LDO1
>      - LDO2
> etc.
> 
> This also maps to structure in DTS. dev_err* messages and any
> allocations should be done on behalf of regulator device, not parent.
>
> Various drivers do this differently... The wm8* drivers set it mostly to
> parent (MFD)...
>
> I do not insists, especially because using parent's device would make
> this driver simpler.
>

Another reason to set it to the parent is to lookup the regulator input supply
node. The regulator_register() function does:

	if (supply) {
		struct regulator_dev *r;

		r = regulator_dev_lookup(dev, supply, &ret);

where dev = config->dev so that will determine on which device node your
input supplies have to be defined. For example on the Peach Pit DTS has this:

	max77802: max77802-pmic@9 {
		...
		inb1-supply = <&tps65090_dcdc2>;
		...
		inb10-supply = <&tps65090_dcdc1>;

		inl1-supply = <&buck5_reg>;
		...
		inl10-supply = <&buck7_reg>;
		...

		regulators {
		...
		};
	};

which is how most (all?) DTS define the input supplies. If you instead
do config.dev = &pdev->dev, then the input supplies have to be in the
"regulators" node which is not the standard AFAICT.

This is not a problem for max77686 because I see that DTS don't define
the input supplies but I guess that is because the power scheme is not
completely modeled.
 
> Mark, maybe you could shed light on it?
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 

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/