linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 04/11] mfd: mt6360: Combine mt6360 pmic/ldo resources into mt6360 regulator resources

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 Jan 2021 07:32:41 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Gene Chen <gene.chen.richtek@...il.com>
Cc:     Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, sre@...nel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gene Chen <gene_chen@...htek.com>, Wilma.Wu@...iatek.com,
        shufan_lee@...htek.com, ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@...htek.com>,
        benjamin.chao@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/11] mfd: mt6360: Combine mt6360 pmic/ldo resources
 into mt6360 regulator resources

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, Gene Chen wrote:

> Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com> 於 2021年1月12日 週二 下午8:32寫道：
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/11/2020 11:39, Gene Chen wrote:
> > > From: Gene Chen <gene_chen@...htek.com>
> > >
> > > Combine mt6360 pmic/ldo resources into mt6360 regulator resources
> > > to simplify the similar resources object.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <gene_chen@...htek.com>
> > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c | 11 +++--------
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > index 692e47b..5119e51 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static const struct resource mt6360_led_resources[] = {
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_FLED1_STRB_TO_EVT, "fled1_strb_to_evt"),
> > >  };
> > >
> > > -static const struct resource mt6360_pmic_resources[] = {
> > > +static const struct resource mt6360_regulator_resources[] = {
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_BUCK1_PGB_EVT, "buck1_pgb_evt"),
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_BUCK1_OC_EVT, "buck1_oc_evt"),
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_BUCK1_OV_EVT, "buck1_ov_evt"),
> > > @@ -278,9 +278,6 @@ static const struct resource mt6360_pmic_resources[] = {
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_LDO7_OC_EVT, "ldo7_oc_evt"),
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_LDO6_PGB_EVT, "ldo6_pgb_evt"),
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_LDO7_PGB_EVT, "ldo7_pgb_evt"),
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > -static const struct resource mt6360_ldo_resources[] = {
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_LDO1_OC_EVT, "ldo1_oc_evt"),
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_LDO2_OC_EVT, "ldo2_oc_evt"),
> > >       DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(MT6360_LDO3_OC_EVT, "ldo3_oc_evt"),
> > > @@ -298,10 +295,8 @@ static const struct mfd_cell mt6360_devs[] = {
> > >                   NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-chg"),
> > >       OF_MFD_CELL("mt6360-led", mt6360_led_resources,
> > >                   NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-led"),
> > > -     OF_MFD_CELL("mt6360-pmic", mt6360_pmic_resources,
> > > -                 NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-pmic"),
> > > -     OF_MFD_CELL("mt6360-ldo", mt6360_ldo_resources,
> > > -                 NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-ldo"),
> > > +     OF_MFD_CELL("mt6360-regulator", mt6360_regulator_resources,
> > > +                 NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-regulator"),
> >
> > As discussed with the MFD maintainer [1], the regulator (and probably all cells)
> > shouldn't have a DT binding.
> >
> > So please send a new version which fixes that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matthias
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20210111164118.GE4728@sirena.org.uk/

I don't think Mark is correct here.

We usually do implement compatible strings for sub-devices and they do
tend to have their own device nodes.

It's a very long time ago since I coded this up myself, but from
memory, you can't have 2 devices share a compatible string.

> Should I use parent's device to find sub-devices of_node if without
> compatible name?
> I trace the function mfd_add_device,
> 
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && parent->of_node && cell->of_compatible) {
>     .....
>     ret = mfd_match_of_node_to_dev(pdev, np, cell);
>     .....
> }
> 
> which is binding mfd sub-device with compatible. Does it be removed in
> the feature?
> 
> > >       OF_MFD_CELL("mt6360-tcpc", NULL,
> > >                   NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-tcpc"),
> > >  };
> > >

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog