linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] mfd: bd71837: Devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <152792104337.225090.2257556980786807638@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:30:43 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        mikko.mutanen@...rohmeurope.com, heikki.haikola@...rohmeurope.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] mfd: bd71837: Devicetree bindings for ROHM BD71837 PMIC

Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2018-06-01 03:51:05)
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 07:57:53AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Rob Herring (2018-05-31 07:07:24)
> > > 
> > > I don't think it should. The h/w either has an interrupt controller or
> > > it doesn't. My concern is you added it but nothing uses it which tells
> > > me your binding is incomplete. I'd rather see complete bindings even
> > > if you don't have drivers. For example, as-is, there's not really any
> > > need for the clocks child node. You can just make the parent a clock
> > > provider. But we need a complete picture of the h/w to make that
> > > determination.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't see a reason to have the clk subnode either.
> 
> After some pondering - do you mean I could:
> 1. remove clk binfing document and clk node.
> 2. add clock-output-names etc to pmic node (and describe them in pmic
> node binding document)
> 3. use parent DT node in clk driver and do something like:
>         if (parent->of_node)
>                 ret = of_clk_add_hw_provider(parent->of_node, of_clk_hw_simple_get,
>                                              hw);
> 4. remove the clkdev
> 

This sounds ok to me. As Rob said, a more complete picture of the
hardware would make this easier.