linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/9] regulator: Update DA9121 dt-bindings

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, 27 Nov 2020 13:01:24 +0000
From:   Adam Ward <Adam.Ward.opensource@...semi.com>
To:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/9] regulator: Update DA9121 dt-bindings

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:47:42PM +0100, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:14:50PM +0100, Adam Ward wrote:
> Actually, perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't quite see why this
> move to a sub-node is needed.  There is some flexibility in the
> regulator framework for this as I noted earlier
> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201102154848.tm5nsydaukyd7rrw@axis.com/).
> For the case of an MFD it certainly makes sense to have a "regulators"
> sub-node but for these chips it seems rather redundant.

This sub-node looks fairly well instituted for devices with multiple regulators.
There's also the possibility to add GPIO support into another sub-node for all the variants.

Mark, do you have a preference?