linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] regulator: add 88pm88x regulators driver

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: Sun, 07 Jan 2024 10:49:20 +0100
From: "Karel Balej" <karelb@...li.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: "Karel Balej" <balejk@...fyz.cz>, "Lee Jones" <lee@...nel.org>, "Rob
 Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Duje Mihanović
 <duje.mihanovic@...le.hr>, <~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht>,
 <phone-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] regulator: add 88pm88x regulators driver

Mark,

On Fri Jan 5, 2024 at 4:18 PM CET, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:39:13AM +0100, Karel Balej wrote:
>
> > @@ -68,6 +68,21 @@ static struct mfd_cell pm886_devs[] = {
> >  		.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pm88x_onkey_resources),
> >  		.resources = pm88x_onkey_resources,
> >  	},
> > +	{
> > +		.name = "88pm88x-regulator",
> > +		.id = PM88X_REGULATOR_ID_LDO2,
> > +		.of_compatible = "marvell,88pm88x-regulator",
> > +	},
>
> Why are we adding an of_compatible here?  It's redundant, the MFD split
> is a feature of Linux internals not of the hardware, and the existing
> 88pm8xx MFD doesn't use them.

in a feedback to my MFD series, Rob Herring pointed out that there is no
need to have a devicetree node for a subdevice if it only contains
"compatible" as the MFD driver can instantiate subdevices itself. I
understood that this is what he was referring to, but now I suspect that
it is sufficient for the mfd_cell.name to be set to the subdevice driver
name for this - is that correct?

Thank you,
K. B.