linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add Hardkernel ODROID-M1 board

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:   Sun, 17 Apr 2022 19:45:52 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>
Cc:     Dongjin Kim <tobetter@...il.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add Hardkernel ODROID-M1 board

On 16/04/2022 14:07, Peter Geis wrote:

>>> +     dc_12v: dc-12v {
>>
>> Generic node name, so "regulator" or "regulator-0"
> 
> Unfortunately, this advice breaks the regulator-fixed driver, which it
> seems cannot cope with a bunch of nodes all named "regulator".

What exactly cannot cope? You cannot have different device nodes with
the same name but this is not a limitation of regulator but devicetree spec.

> Setting the regulators as regulator-0 -1 -2 leads to fun issues where
> the regulator numbering in the kernel doesn't match the node numbers.

There are no "node numbers"... maybe you mean unit addresses? But there
are none here.

> It also makes it more fun when additional regulators need to be added
> and everything gets shuffled around.

Usually adding - in subsequent DTS files - means increasing the numbers
so if you have regulator-[012] then just use regulator-[345] in other
files. I see potential mess when you combine several DTSI files, each
defining regulators, so in such case "some-name-regulator" (or reversed)
is also popular approach.

> If naming these uniquely to avoid confusion and collisions is such an
> issue, why is it not caught by make W=1 dtbs_check?

Patches are welcome. :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof