linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 02/16] dt-bindings: rtc: mediatek: add bindings for PMIC RTC

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: <20180327151848.GD22441@piout.net>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:18:48 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, sre@...nel.org,
        lee.jones@...aro.org, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
        eddie.huang@...iatek.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/16] dt-bindings: rtc: mediatek: add bindings for
 PMIC RTC

On 25/03/2018 at 03:36:28 +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> just reply both replies in the same mail
> 
> 1.) the power-off device is a part of rtc, use the same registers rtc
> has and thus it is put as child nodes under the node rtc to reflect the
> reality of characteristics the rtc has.
> 
> Or am I wrong for a certain aspect in these opinions?
> 

My point is that it is also part of the PMIC so it may as well be
registers from the mfd driver which already registers a bunch of devices
instead of doing unusual stuff from the rtc driver.

mt6397_rtc->regmap is mt6397_chip->regmap anyway. You have the added
benefit that if the RTC driver probe fails for some reason, you may
still be able to probe the reset driver.

I don't tink there is any benefit having it as a child of the rtc
device.

> 2) the other sub-functions for the same pmic already created its own
> dt-binding document belonged to its corresponding subsystem. Don't we
> really want to follow it them all?
> 

Ok, that's fine.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com