linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: rohm PMICs - use platform_device

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:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:53:51 +0200
From:   Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     mazziesaccount@...il.com
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: rohm PMICs - use platform_device_id to match MFD
 sub-devices

Hello Lee, Stephen, Mark & All,

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:30:12PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> Do device matching using the platform_device_id instead of using
> explicit module_aliases to load modules and custom parent-data field
> to do module loading and sub-device matching.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
> ---
> 
> Thanks to Stephen Boyd I just learned we can use platform_device_id
> to do device and module matching for MFD sub-devices. This is handy
> in cases where more than one chips are supported by same sub-device
> drivers. For ROHM it currently is clk and regulator - but also the
> RTC when BD71828 is in-tree.

I have been preparing driver for yet another ROHM PMIC (bd71828) - and
the patch has been taking a few spins as RFC now. I would like to send
first non RFC version of it - and I would like to write it on top of
this patch. Is it Ok if I include this patch in the series - or should
this stay as independent change? I would like to try avoid conflicting
patches.

Br,
	Matti Vaittinen