linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] drm/panfrost: Add support for multiple 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <aed32f5e-34d9-966b-98d2-2af3d311894a@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:09:08 +0000
From:   Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com>,
        hsinyi@...omium.org, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] drm/panfrost: Add support for multiple regulators

On 20/01/2020 17:03, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 02:43:10PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
> 
>> From discussions offline, I think I've come round to the view that
>> having a "soft PDC" in device tree isn't the right solution. Device tree
>> should be describing the hardware and that isn't actually a hardware
>> component.
> 
> You can use an implementation like that separately to it being in the
> device tree, it is perfectly possible to instantiate devices that have
> no representation at all in device tree based on other things that are
> there like board or SoC information, or as subdevices of things that are
> there.

Yes - and I may yet implement a "soft PDC" device if this turns out to
be more than a 'quirk' for a very small number of device. But like you
say - it doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) in the actual device tree.

For now though I think the code Nicolas has written works well enough
and it's only really worth 'fixing' if we end up with too many 'quirky'
devices.

Steve