linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] mfd: Add atmel-st driver

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]

Message-ID: <20150120164515.GF30656@x1>
Date:	Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:45:15 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Cc:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] mfd: Add atmel-st driver

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Nicolas Ferre wrote:

> Le 20/01/2015 16:05, Alexandre Belloni a écrit :
> > On 20/01/2015 at 09:47:39 +0000, Lee Jones wrote :
> >>>> This driver looks pretty pointless.  Why can't you request the sysconf
> >>>> registers from within the drivers themselves?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> How would you probe the watchdog driver then? Would you had the
> >>> "atmel,at91rm9200-st" compatible there?
> >>>
> >>> At some point in time, we should add the reset driver, would you also
> >>> match it on "atmel,at91rm9200-st"?
> >>>
> >>> I'm fine with that as this allows to avoid the mfd driver.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, I don't follow.  Why can't each driver have their own
> >> compatible strings?
> >>
> > 
> > The same IP provides a clocksource, a watchdog and is also the reset
> > controller. I think that the DT guidelines requires that the DT
> > describes the hardware and so use one compatible for that IP;
> 
> I would add also that the registers within the IP are kind of mixed,
> there is no way to separate by logical functions.

How is that different from any other syscon based device?

BTW, did you see "mfd: syscon: fix syscon probing from dt"

It may be the solution to your problem.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/