linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: Add bindings for lm3697 driver

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: <20180911205504.GA31219@amd>
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:55:05 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
Cc:     Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: leds: Add bindings for lm3697 driver

Hi!

> >>>>>> And I think Jacek pointed out that the bindings references in this bindings
> >>>>>> don't even exist.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am thinking we need to deprecate this MFD driver and consolidate these drivers
> >>>>>> in the LED directory as we indicated before.  I did not find any ti-lmu support
> >>>>>> code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ti-lmu common core code and then the LED children appending the feature differentiation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Need some maintainer weigh in here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hehe. I'm maintnainer. Fun.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know.  I want to see if there was any other opinion.  Especially for the LED driver.
> >>>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> I have a question - is this lm3697 LED controller a cell of some MFD
> >>> device? Or is it a self-contained chip?
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is a self contained chip.  And the LM3697 only function is a LED driver.
> >> It does not have any other special functions like the LM363X drivers for GPIO and Regulator support.
> > 
> > This is an argument for merging it as a standalone LED class driver
> > then. It is even more justifiable, taking into account uncertainties
> > related to the proper way of adding the support for it to the existing
> > MFD driver, whereas the code reuse would be the only advantage of having
> > thus support in MFD subsystem.
> 
> Does the argument carry over to the other devices?

We really need something reasonable, that works for stand-alone LEDs,
and also works for LEDs that are part of MFD when the hardware is similar.

> Like the LM3632 (part of the ti-lmu) has flash and torch and no other special functions
> so it would look like the lm3601x family with different register mappings.
> 
> The LM3631 seems to also be just a LED driver with no extra functionality
> 
> I could go buy an EVM and put together a driver for that device as well using the lm3601x as
> reference.

I do have hardware with lm3532. I can test patches, and I guess I can
port driver easily if it is obvious how to do that.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)