linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: regulator: add bindings for output-supply

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:07:49 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: regulator: add bindings for output-supply

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 8:43 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 08:23:39AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 8:14 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > It's a description of a power supply output from their system (system as
> > > a whole, not power provisioned within the system).
>
> > Well, that's a better commit message than the original, but I still
> > don't understand.
>
> Consider for example a BMC (IIRC that's what their specific product is),
> a bench supply or some automated test equipment.  Part of the function
> for these systems is to provide power to other systems which would be
> represented as a root or wall supply in the description of the system
> that actually uses the supply if it were described using DT.

Didn't someone else have a similar use recently? Controlling some
supply external to the system. I can't seem to find it now.

In any case, it's not for you to describe, but Naresh, and in the
binding and commit messages. But first we need to overcome proper
usage of get_maintainers.pl. In response, to my first reply on v4, I
have a second v4 sent privately today (and still only the vendor
prefix). Sigh. AFAICT, for v1-v3, the only thing that made it to the
list was the cover letters. Bottom line is this series has multiple
problems and shouldn't have been applied yet.

Rob