linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: regulator: Add bindings for Unisoc's SC2730 regulator

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]

Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 11:19:08 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@...il.com>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <chunyan.zhang@...soc.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: regulator: Add bindings for Unisoc's
 SC2730 regulator

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022, Chunyan Zhang wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> Sorry for the late response.
> [1] is the v1 on which we had some discussion. I hope that can help
> recall the issue below.
> 
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 21:46, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 11:19:53AM +0800, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
> >
> > > +properties:
> > > +  compatible:
> > > +    const: sprd,sc2730-regulator
> >
> > I still don't understand why this MFD subfunction for a specific device
> > is a separate binding with a separate compatible string, the issues I
> > mentioned previously with this just encoding current Linux internals
> > into the DT rather than describing the device still apply.
> 
> I understand your point. But like I described previously [1], if we
> still use the current solution (i.e. use devm_of_platform_populate()
> to register MFD subdevices), a compatible string is required. I'm open
> to switching to other solutions, do you have some suggestions?

Many IPs encompassing multiple functions are described that way in
DT.  I don't have the details for *this* device to hand, so my
comments here aren't specific to this use-case, but describing each
function individually does describe the H/W accurately, which is all
DT calls for.

Can you imagine describing an SoC, which can be considered as a huge
MFD, with only a single node?

Does the regulator functionality have it's own bank of registers?

-- 
DEPRECATED: Please use lee@...nel.org