linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 4/9] regulator: bd71837: Devicetree bindings for BD71837 regulators

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: <042F8805D2046347BB8420BEAE397A4016C06B47@WILL-MAIL002.REu.RohmEu.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 17:30:57 +0000
From:   "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        "lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Mutanen, Mikko" <Mikko.Mutanen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        "Haikola, Heikki" <Heikki.Haikola@...rohmeurope.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/9] regulator: bd71837: Devicetree bindings for BD71837
 regulators

Hello Mark,

First of all, thank you for taking your time to check the patches. I do
appreciate it. I find reading patches hard myself.

> From: Mark Brown [broonie@...nel.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 5:01 PM
> 
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:57:52AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>
> > +Required properties:
> > + - compatible: should be "rohm,bd71837-pmic".
> > + - regulator-name: should be "buck1", ..., "buck8" and "ldo1", ..., "ldo7"
>
> The MFD is for a single device, there should be no need for compatibles
> on subfunctions.

I will check this. I must admit I am not sure what is the de-facto mechanism
for assigning the correct device-tree nodes to sub devices if compatibles
are not used? I think I saw device-tree node name being used for regulators
but how is it done for example with clk? I would be grateful if anyone could
point me to right direction with this.

Also, another thing I was wondering is how supply regulators should be
handled? In this case the LDO5 is supplied by BUCK6 and LDO6 by
BUCK7. 

>From generic regulator bindings
/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt
I found statement:

> - <name>-supply: phandle to the parent supply/regulator node

and

> Regulator Consumers:
> Consumer nodes can reference one or more of its supplies/
> regulators using the below bindings.
>
> - <name>-supply: phandle to the regulator node
>
> These are the same bindings that a regulator in the above
> example used to reference its own supply, in which case
> ts just seen as a special case of a regulator being a
> consumer itself.

but I did not find handling for the supply properties from regulator core.
Thus I ended up hard coding the supply relation in driver. This means
that buck6 name must be fixed.

Br,
    Matti Vaittinen