linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] mfd: mxs-lradc: Add support for mxs-lradc MFD

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:14:30 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
Cc:     Ksenija Stanojevic <ksenija.stanojevic@...il.com>,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, pmeerw@...erw.net, jic23@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de,
        dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, harald@...ib.org,
        fabio.estevam@...escale.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        marex@...x.de, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] mfd: mxs-lradc: Add support for mxs-lradc MFD

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Stefan Wahren wrote:

> Hi Lee,
> 
> [add Rob and Mark]
> 
> > Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> hat am 29. September 2016 um 19:15
> > geschrieben:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > > Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> hat am 28. September 2016 um 03:05
> > > > geschrieben:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Ksenija Stanojevic wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int mxs_lradc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> > > > > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > > > +	struct device_node *node = dev->of_node;
> > > > > +	struct mxs_lradc *lradc;
> > > > > +	struct mfd_cell *cells = NULL;
> > > > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > > > +	u32 ts_wires = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	lradc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lradc), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > +	if (!lradc)
> > > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	of_id = of_match_device(mxs_lradc_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> > > > > +	lradc->soc = (enum mxs_lradc_id)of_id->data;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	lradc->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> > > > > +	if (IS_ERR(lradc->clk)) {
> > > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to get the delay unit clock\n");
> > > > > +		return PTR_ERR(lradc->clk);
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(lradc->clk);
> > > > > +	if (ret) {
> > > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable the delay unit clock\n");
> > > > > +		return ret;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "fsl,lradc-touchscreen-wires",
> > > > 
> > > > Have you moved the documentation into devicetree/bindings/mfd?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > i hope it's okay if i answer. The binding has moved to
> > > devicetree/binding/iio/adc/ [1]
> > > 
> > > Should it move completely to mfd or split too?
> > > 
> > > I'm asking myself how we keep DT ABI in the latter case.
> > > 
> > > [1] -
> > > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.txt
> > 
> > I haven't read into the documentation too to deeply, but it stands to
> > reason that the bindings which are now being used in MFD should be
> > documented in the MFD binding document, and the ones which are no longer
> > used in the IIO driver should be removed.
> 
> sure, that isn't a problem.
> 
> The more interesting question would be: do we need a new compatible string for
> the mfd driver?

No, I don't think that is necessary.

> In that case the ADC won't probe for the combination of old devicetree blobs and
> new kernel.


-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog