linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] regulator: fan53555: Add support for RK860X

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: <ea1dfe0f-4ed3-9bfb-dc6b-6d87b0267a99@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 20:13:37 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Joseph Chen <chenjh@...k-chips.com>,
        Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] regulator: fan53555: Add support for RK860X

On 06/04/2023 13:15, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> On 4/6/23 14:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 06/04/2023 12:08, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>>>> +	}, {
>>>>> +		.name = "rk8602",
>>>>> +		.driver_data = RK8602_VENDOR_ROCKCHIP
>>>>> +	}, {
>>>>> +		.name = "rk8603",
>>>>> +		.driver_data = RK8602_VENDOR_ROCKCHIP
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need this entry match data if it is the same as rk8602?
>>>
>>> This is consistent with the handling of syr827 and syr828:
>>>
>>> 		.name = "syr827",
>>> 		.driver_data = FAN53555_VENDOR_SILERGY
>>> 	}, {
>>> 		.name = "syr828",
>>> 		.driver_data = FAN53555_VENDOR_SILERGY
>>
>> Yeah, I understand, but it's not necessarily the pattern we want to
>> continue. Unless these devices are not really compatible?
> 
> They are compatible, so should I simply drop the rk8601 and rk8603 entries?
> 
> Probably also renaming rk8600 and rk8602, though I'm not sure what a
> proper naming scheme would be to combine the 2 variants for each.

For each compatible family you should have only one entry in each ID
table. Naming of driver data does not matter really. Just use lower chip
name.

Best regards,
Krzysztof