linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,spmi-regulator: Convert to dtschema

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:   Wed, 18 May 2022 09:45:39 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,spmi-regulator:
 Convert to dtschema

On 17/05/2022 22:58, Robert Marko wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 16:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/05/2022 13:59, Robert Marko wrote:
>>> Convert the bindings of Qualcomm SPMI regulators to DT schema.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> I am aware that syscon alone is not really acceptable, its converted
>>> directly from the old text bindings.
>>>
>>> There is also the issue of some MSM8994, MSM8996 and APQ8096 devices using
>>> '#address-cells', '#size-cells', some even defining reg property for
>>> regulators.
>>>
>>> Any advice on how to solve these issues is appreciated.
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>
>> Changelog goes after ---
> 
> Ok, will fix up in v3.
> 
> While we are here,
> any ideas about the DTS-s that use reg and #address/size-cells for
> regulator subnodes and syscon?

Ideas for what exactly? It looks like a more of a subsystem convention,
whether to use unit addresses for children which are not real devices
(LEDs use unit addresses, regulators do not).

Best regards,
Krzysztof