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]

Message-ID: <56536677.5070102@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:18:15 -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 11/23/2015 01:00 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:40:55AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>
>> 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 configuration of_node is there to override the device one if there
> were some reason to do it.  This should only happen in a situation where
> we weren't able to use the core parsing, with modern drivers it
> indicates a problematic binding so the code deliberately doesn't handle
> it.  Anything with a problematic binding will have generated the
> init_data in driver code anyway.  If we come up with a reason to extend
> the interface we can do that but for now there is no need.
>

Right, so this is the kind of description that would be nice with the
declaration.

>> The same issue is present in GPIO (gpiolib.c:612), where the of_node
>
> Line number references are complately unhelpful if you don't say what
> you're looking at (for me that's a call to irq_find_mapping() which I'm
> guessing isn't what you were talking about).
>

My bad, that is for v4.4-rc1 line 694. The lines are:

> 	of_node = gpiochip->dev->of_node;
> #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO
> 	/*
> 	 * If the gpiochip has an assigned OF node this takes precedence
> 	 * FIXME: get rid of this and use gpiochip->dev->of_node everywhere
> 	 */
> 	if (gpiochip->of_node)
> 		of_node = gpiochip->of_node;
> #endif

So, if we have a config->of_node it is used over config->dev->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.
>
> No, they both do the same thing.
>

I don't see that, config->dev->of_node is checked for the init data in
regulator_of_get_init_data, then config->of_node is then ignored if that
succeeds.
--
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/