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]

Message-ID: <d3cb233a-1962-af6b-2663-c057e7823a2b@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:21:14 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>
Cc:     Dongjin Kim <tobetter@...il.com>,
        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 17/04/2022 22:55, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> so going with
> 
> 	dc_12v: dc-12v-regulator {
> 	};
> 
> i.e. doing a some-name-regulator would be an in-spec way to go?
> 
> In this case I would definitely prefer this over doing a numbered thing.
> 
> I.e. regulator-0 can create really hard to debug issues, when you have
> another accidential regulator-0 for a different regulator in there, which
> then would create some sort of merged node.

I don't think such case happens frequently, because all regulators are
usually used by something (as a phandle) thus they should have a label.
This label should be descriptive, so if one can assign same label to
entirely different regulators, then the same chances are that same
descriptive node will be used.

IOW, if you think such mistake with regulator names can happen, then the
same can happen with the label...

Anyway, answering the question - "dc-12v-regulator" is still not
matching exactly the Devicetree spec recommendation, but it's okay for
me. :)


Best regards,
Krzysztof