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: <55B607B7.6050803@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:28:07 +0200
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	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 Mark,

On 07/20/2015 12:12 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> 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.
> 

Any opinions on this?

thanks a lot and 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/