linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am625-sk: Enable on board peripherals

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]

Message-ID: <64d6e4c9-419a-eb31-36cb-ec9faadf6088@ti.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:47:36 +0530
From:   Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am625-sk: Enable on board
 peripherals



On 26/04/22 12:32 am, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 11:22, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>>> +		/* TPS22918DBVR */
>>>> +		compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>>>> +		regulator-name = "vdd_mmc1";
>>>> +		regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>>> +		regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
>>>> +		regulator-boot-on;
>>>> +		enable-active-high;
>>>> +		vin-supply = <&vcc_3v3_sys>;
>>>> +		gpio = <&exp1 3 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>> +	};
>>>> +
>>>> +	vdd_sd_dv: gpio-regulator-TLV71033 {
>>>
>>> The same + do not mix cases, so regulator-1 or regulator-tlv71033
>>
>> I have fixed this in v3. But had one question though:
>>
>> Per DT spec, 2.2.3 Path Names seems to indicate node-name-N when N is
>> 1,2,3.. So, is it valid to have regulator-tlv71033 as node-name -> does
>> not strictly seem to fit into node-name-N format ?
> 
> No, "regulator-tlv71033" does not match DT spec. Indeed better to have
> some generic suffix, e.g. regulator-vbatt, but strictly speaking DT spec
> asks for just "regulator-[0-9]".
> 
> However several people prefer such descriptive suffix instead of
> "regulator-[0-9]" because it makes their life easier when extending DTSI
> (when both DTSI and DTS provide some of such regulators). Therefore I
> don't think it's that important to keep with the spec. Rob for example
> does not complain here, so probably I am stricter than him.
> 
> In any case it would be good to have only suffix or only prefix, e.g.
> "regulator-foo-bar" or "foo-bar-regulator", so DT schema can match
> against it. Several other types of devices already require such naming.
> 


Understood, thanks for the clarification!

Regards
Vignesh