linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] ARM: DTS: da850: Add usb phy node

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:   Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:55:42 -0500
From:   David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Axel Haslam <ahaslam@...libre.com>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] ARM: DTS: da850: Add usb phy node

On 10/26/2016 05:26 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 October 2016 08:36 AM, David Lechner wrote:
>> Add a node for the new usb phy driver.
>
> changed this to:
>
>     Add a node for usb phy device. This device
>     controls both the USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 PHYs.
>
> mainly because the node is for the device, not the driver.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
>
> Applied to v4.10/dt
>
> Thanks,
> Sekhar
>

I found a better way to represent this device as a child of the syscon 
node. How should we handle the change? Should I submit a new patch that 
applies on top of this one or will you drop this patch and I should send 
a new one to take it's place?

Assuming that you agree that this is better:

	cfgchip: cfgchip@...7c {
		compatible = "ti,da830-cfgchip", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
		reg = <0x1417c 0x14>;

		usb_phy: usb-phy {
			compatible = "ti,da830-usb-phy";
			#phy-cells = <1>;
			status = "disabled";
		};
	};

Since the phy consists entirely as registers in the syscon device, we 
should make it a child of the syscon device instead of a child of the 
soc node.