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  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:   Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:26:30 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <>
To:     Rob Herring <>
Cc:     Lee Jones <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Mark Brown <>,
        devicetree <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Guenter Roeck <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Robin Murphy <>,
        GregKroah-Hartman <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] MFD's relationship with Device Tree (OF)

Hi Rob,

Am 2020-06-10 00:03, schrieb Rob Herring:
> Yes, we should use 'reg' whenever possible. If we don't have 'reg',
> then you shouldn't have a unit-address either and you can simply match
> on the node name (standard DT driver matching is with compatible,
> device_type, and node name (w/o unit-address)). We've generally been
> doing 'classname-N' when there's no 'reg' to do 'classname@N'.
> Matching on 'classname-N' would work with node name matching as only
> unit-addresses are stripped.

This still keeps me thinking. Shouldn't we allow the (MFD!) device
driver creator to choose between "classname@N" and "classname-N".
In most cases N might not be made up, but it is arbitrarily chosen;
for example you've chosen the bank for the ab8500 reg. It is not
a defined entity, like an I2C address if your parent is an I2C bus,
or a SPI chip select, or the memory address in case of MMIO. Instead
the device driver creator just chooses some "random" property from
the datasheet; another device creator might have chosen another
property. Wouldn't it make more sense, to just say this MFD provides
N pwm devices and the subnodes are matching based on pwm-{0,1..N-1}?
That would also be the logical consequence of the current MFD sub
device to OF node matching code, which just supports N=1.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists