linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 2/2] i2c: core: support bus regulator controlling in adapter

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: <CAJMQK-jZnQ1pt435Dz=xAbuU=wJcMJkSFSnTtuARTW_rGwRCFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Mar 2021 21:34:37 +0800
From:   Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Bibby Hsieh <bibby.hsieh@...iatek.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 2/2] i2c: core: support bus regulator controlling in adapter

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:17 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:36:07PM +0800, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
>
> > +     adap->bus_regulator = devm_regulator_get(&adap->dev, "bus");
> > +     if (IS_ERR(adap->bus_regulator)) {
> > +             res = PTR_ERR(adap->bus_regulator);
> > +             goto out_reg;
> > +     }
>
> Idiomatically supplies should be named as they are by the chip datasheet
> rather than just a generic name like this, and I'm guessing that systems
> that have supplies like this will often already have something
> requesting the supply (eg, it's quite common for consumer drivers to do
> this) under that name.  I can see this being a useful thing to factor
> out into the core but it seems like it'd be better to have it enabled by
> having the controllers (or devices) pass a supply name (or possibly
> requested regulator) to the core rather than by just hard coding a name
> in the core so bindings look as expected.
>

I'll move the regulator request into device instead of core in the
next version. Thanks.

> I do also wonder if it's better to put the feature on the clients rather
> than the controller, I don't think it makes much difference though.