linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a deprecated property

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: <55ACC986.5040408@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:12:22 +0200
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: max77686: Don't suggest in binding to use a
 deprecated property

Hello Lee,

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

On 07/20/2015 10:10 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> 
>> The regulator-compatible property from the regulator DT binding was
>> deprecated. But the max77686 DT binding doc still suggest to use it
>> instead of the regulator node name's which is the correct approach.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
> 
> By convention shouldn't this be buck@1, or something?
>
> Need Mark to look at this.
>

That's a very good question, the ePAPR doc says:

"The unit-address must match the first address specified in the reg property
of the node. If the node has no reg property, the @ and unit-address must be
omitted and the node-name alone differentiates the node from other nodes at
the same level in the tree"

This PMIC uses a single I2C address for all the regulators and these are
controlled by writing to different I2C register addresses. So the regulator
nodes don't have a reg property in this case.

By looking at other regulators bindings, besides the generic regulator.txt
and fixed-regulator.txt DT bindings, there are only 5 (out of 40) that use
the node-name@...t-address convention mentioned in the ePAPR document.

AFAICT all these are for regulators that are actually in different addresses
but I could be wrong so let's see what Mark says.

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
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/