linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] regulator: tps65086: Add regulator driver for the TPS65086 PMIC

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]

Date:	Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:40:55 -0600
From:	"Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	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>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] regulator: tps65086: Add regulator driver for the
 TPS65086 PMIC

On 11/22/2015 07:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 02:40:50PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> On 11/21/2015 07:37 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> An earlier version of this patch has already been applied, please don't
>>> resend already applied patches but send incremental patches with any
>>> changes.
>
>> Odd, I didn't seem to get any message for this getting applied. Looks
>> like only a couple lines difference from the version in the regulators
>> branch, I don't imagine you are able to rebase that with these changes?
>
> As a matter of policy I try to avoid rewriting history unless it is
> really required.
>

Makes sense, I'll push the patch once the rest of this driver gets
pulled in-case more changes are needed.

>> Anyway the reason that line needed changed is over a confusion in
>> what the 'of_node' does in 'struct regulator_config'. The description
>> seems to make it seem like it is the node that gets checked for
>> init data.
>
> The current behaviour is the intended behaviour.
>
>>> * @of_node: OpenFirmware node to parse for device tree bindings (may be
>>> *           NULL).
>
>> But the 'of_node' that is actually searched is the one given in
>> regulator_config->dev->of_node. Is this intended behavior (drivers
>> assume it is so it probably has to be now) and if so, the above
>> description might need to be clarified as too what that 'of_node'
>> pointer really does?
>
> Please submit a patch with any clarification you think is needed.
> of_node is the name of the container subnode of the main node for the
> device where we look for init data - both are used.
>

But which of_node?

regulator_config->of_node
regulator_config->dev->of_node

The second is the only one I see getting used, the first is only
used when drivers provide their own init_data and automatic init
data getting fails.

The same issue is present in GPIO (gpiolib.c:612), where the of_node
in the config takes precedence over the one in config->dev, the
opposite is true for regulators, this is very confusing and should be
standardized.
--
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/