linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add support for MT6366 PMIC

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]

Message-ID: <e9c38029-f27d-7800-2ba8-d9ee19d999e4@collabora.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:01:35 +0200
From:   AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Zhiyong Tao <zhiyong.tao@...iatek.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add support for MT6366 PMIC

Il 03/08/23 09:42, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
> The MT6366 PMIC is mostly, but not fully, compatible with MT6358. It has
> a different set of regulators. Specifically, it lacks the camera related
> VCAM* LDOs, but has additional VM18, VMDDR, and VSRAM_CORE LDOs.
> 
> Add a separate compatible for the MT6366 PMIC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>

We can express the same partial-compatibility state with bindings, adding a
new compatible here with the same platform data doesn't really add any value...

...also because in DT we'll have something like
	compatible = "mediatek,mt6366", "mediatek,mt6358";

so if any variation of platform data in mtk-pmic-wrap will ever be needed, we
would still be able to do that in the future without any headache.

In my opinion, this commit can be dropped.

P.S.: We could add a comment in the mt6366.dtsi pmic devicetree for that, too?

Cheers,
Angelo

> ---
>   drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 2 ++
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> index 11095b8de71a..e3c0e767033b 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> @@ -2257,6 +2257,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id of_slave_match_tbl[] = {
>   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6357", .data = &pmic_mt6357 },
>   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6358", .data = &pmic_mt6358 },
>   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6359", .data = &pmic_mt6359 },
> +	/* MT6366 is mostly compatible with MT6358, except for slightly different regulators. */
> +	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6366", .data = &pmic_mt6358 },
>   
>   	/* The MT6380 PMIC only implements a regulator, so we bind it
>   	 * directly instead of using a MFD.