linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] dt-bindings: regulator: Add pm8008 regulator 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]

Message-ID: <30b21a08-f7f7-f3a6-a3ac-156c7f8964b1@quicinc.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 19:13:02 +0530
From:   "Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)" <quic_c_skakit@...cinc.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        <collinsd@...eaurora.org>, <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
        Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Lee Jones" <lee.jones@...aro.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] dt-bindings: regulator: Add pm8008 regulator
 bindings


On 11/25/2021 8:54 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 03:12:29PM +0530, Satya Priya wrote:
>
>> +properties:
>> +  compatible:
>> +    const: qcom,pm8008-regulators
> Why are we adding a separate compatible for this when we already know
> that this is a pm8008 based on the parent?


For the regulator driver to be probed we do need a separate compatible 
right? may be I didn't get your question..

My understanding is we should have a separate compatible for each 
peripheral under the parent mfd node.. like gpios, temp alarm, 
regulators etc..


>> +  vdd_l1_l2-supply:
>> +    description: Input supply phandle of ldo1 and ldo2 regulators.
> These supply nodes should be chip level, they're going into the chip and
> in general the expectation is that you should be able to describe the
> supplies going into a device without worrying about how or if any
> particular OS splits things up.

So, if i understand correctly, we don't have to mention these in the 
documentation as these are handled at framework level?