linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] tps6105x: add optional devicetree support

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:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:17:50 -0500
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Grigoryev Denis <grigoryev@...twel.ru>,
        Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] tps6105x: add optional devicetree support

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:01 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> We shouldn't need a compatible here, the MFD should just instantiate any
> children it has.

If the child node doesn't have a compatible, how would the driver be
able to work
out the operational mode? The chip can only be in a single operational mode
at a time. So the child node has 'led' or 'regulator' compatible.

Or is there a more elegant method I've overlooked?

> This also doesn't document any actual regulators on
> the device.

The chip contains a single optional regulator only. I documented its
dt bindings later in the patchset.