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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 18:27:13 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
        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 Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 07:59:08AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022, Mark Brown wrote:

> > If people want to describe the individual regulators that'd be
> > less of an issue, it's mainly when you're nesting what's
> > effectively another MFD within a parent MFD that it's just noise
> > that's being added to the DT.

> As I say, I haven't studied this use-case.

> These comments were designed to be more generic.

> What do you mean by nested MFDs?

Given that individual regulators tend to be separate physical IPs in the
chip if you create a single device tree node that lumps them together
you still need to also represent the individual regulators as well so
that collection is functioning like a MFD does except not on a chip
boundary.

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

> > Honestly we should be arranging things so they're more like that,
> > at least using overlays for the internals of the SoC so you don't
> > have to rebuild the whole DT for updates to the SoC internals.

> Right, there would be one device root node.  However each function;
> clock providers, regulator controllers, PWMs, GPIOs, networking
> (various), reset, watchdog, etc would have their own nodes.  Rather
> than attempting to describe everything in the parent's node.

We don't split things up by function, we split them up by IP - we don't
just allocate a compatible for all the networking related functionality
simply because there's a networking subsystem in Linux for example.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)