linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: qcom: Rework to single platform device

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: <20150305103810.GF21293@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:38:10 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: qcom: Rework to single platform device

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:46:25PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/04/15 16:30, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:35:43AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> > Dependency resolution isn't anything new, I'm not sure why you think
> > this is related to of_parse_cb()?  Open coding does exactly the same

> I was just using of_parse_cb to indicate the difference from
> of_regulator_match(). I could have said "between your design and my design".

Please do things like that - it makes things harder to follow if people
throw in random unrelated terms for things.

> > of.  There was a proposal quite recently from someone at Samsung Poland
> > to do something more coreish and basically split registrations in two,
> > one half registering the things needed for each resource and then a
> > second half which runs once the required resources are registered.
> > Pushing that along might be best, it's a more general approach.  The
> > component stuff Russell did has some similarities here.

> Ah you're talking about the res track stuff[1]? That patchset seemed to
> be doing a *lot* of different stuff where probe defer was just a part of
> it. Frmo what I recall that still operates on the device level, where
> here we want to be able to say that a particular regulator needs another
> resource, but it's ok to register it's sibling regulator within this
> device because that regulator doesn't need anything. Are you saying you
> want the restrack stuff to work at the regulator level? If we went that
> way we could do the same thing in the clock framework and get rid of the
> orphan list and rely on the notifications from restrack to figure out
> when a clock resource becomes fully available.

Yes, that's it.  It's not quite the same thing as registering individual
resources and there are definite issues to be addressed but I think it's
a promising approach for addressing the deferred probe problem in a more
elegant way.

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