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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:47:31 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)" <quic_c_skakit@...cinc.com>
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 Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 07:13:02PM +0530, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
> 
> 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..

No, the MFD can register whatever children it likes without needing any
help from the DT.

> > > +  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?

No.  I'm saying you should document these at the chip level, they do
need to be documented though.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)