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: <55134847.3060304@ti.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Mar 2015 05:14:07 +0530
From:	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
CC:	Arun Ramamurthy <arun.ramamurthy@...adcom.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anatol Pomazau <anatol@...gle.com>,
	Jonathan Richardson <jonathar@...adcom.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] phy: phy-core: allow specifying supply at port
 level

Hi,

On Thursday 26 March 2015 04:19 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:09:23AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thursday 26 March 2015 03:47 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday 21 March 2015 02:55 AM, Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
>>>>> Multi-port phy's may have per-port power supplies. Let's change phy core
>>>>> to first attempt to look up the supply at the port level, and then, if
>>>>> not found, check parent device.
>>>>
>>>> Why not just have every port provide the power supply if it needs?
>>>> I don't think checking for parent device should be present in the phy-core at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> We need to do that if we want to keep compatibility with the current
>>> DTSes: before this patch the supply would be always looked up on
>>> device and not port level.
>>
>> ah okay.
>> so just using regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); should be sufficient
> 
> This is for regulators specified at port level (&phy->dev represents
> port).
> 
>> right? Why do we need regulator_get_optional(phy->dev.parent, "phy");?
>>
> 
> This is for compatibility with old multi-port bindings where supply is
> specified at parent device level and phy_create() is called with dev and
> node that is not NULL and not the same as dev->of_node. I have no idea
> if such bindings exist in wild, but wanted to keep them working given
> stated DT stability rules.

Such a binding doesn't exist. So let's keep only the
regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); part. Only TI SoCs and recently
sun9i started using phy-supply and none of them use multi-phy PHY provider.

Thanks
Kishon
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ