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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 07:46:07 -0400
From:   Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, 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 Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:21 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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. :)

This seems like an excellent compromise, thanks!

>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof