linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable Maxim 8997 family drivers

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: <561D04BB.1080406@samsung.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:18:51 +0900
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
Cc:	k.kozlowski.k@...il.com, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable Maxim 8997 family
 drivers

W dniu 13.10.2015 o 17:36, Javier Martinez Canillas pisze:
> Hello Krzysztof,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> wrote:
>> Enable support for Maxim 8997 Multi Function Device present on Trats and
>> Origen boards by toggling on drivers: main MFD, charger, haptic motor,
>> regulator, LED and RTC.
>>
>> This allows to test and usage of these boards with multi_v7 config.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
>> ---
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>  CONFIG_MFD_MAX77686=y
>>  CONFIG_MFD_MAX77693=y
>>  CONFIG_MFD_MAX8907=y
>> +CONFIG_MFD_MAX8997=y
> 
> Only slightly related with your patch but some of the MFD driver for
> PMICs used in Exynos boards (like MAX77686) have a tristate Kconfig
> symbol while others like this one have a boolean. Do you know if there
> are any restrictions w.r.t build this as module or is just an
> arbitrary decision? I'm asking since probably we should either allow
> this to build as a module or convert the others to boolean.

First, thanks for reviewing the patches.

As for the question, I wasn't involved in development of these older
drivers for older boards. I don't know their internals. AFAIK there were
no specific restrictions, except the usual:

1. Not all other drivers using resources provided by these, took the
reference to given resource (e.g. get regulator).

2. Not all consumer drivers supported deferred probe for given resource
(e.g. regulator, clock), see: "regulators: max77693: register driver
earlier to avoid deferred probe". In general USB gadget subsystem has
this issue. Actually the mentioned max77693 regulator driver should be
changed from tristate to built-in because of this.

I don't remember any other important issues so if you fix 1 and 2 then
this can be probably safely switched to modules. Of course after testing.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
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/