linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tda38640: Add interrupt & regulator properties

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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:48:52 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
 Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, mazziesaccount@...il.com,
 linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tda38640: Add interrupt &
 regulator properties

On 2/14/24 09:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:55:03PM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>> Add properties for interrupt & regulator.
>> Also update example.
> 
> I feel like a broken record. Your patches need to explain _why_ you're
> doing what you're doing. I can read the diff and see this, but I do not
> know what the justification for it is.
> 
> /30 seconds later
> I really am a broken record, to quote from v1:
> | Feeling like a broken record, given I am leaving the same comments on
> | multiple patches. The commit message needs to explain why you're doing
> | something. I can read the diff and see what you did!
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240126-fleshed-subdued-36bae813e2ba@spud/
> 
> The patch itself does look better than the v1, with one minor comment
> below.
> 
> Thanks,
> Conor.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
>>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> 1. Remove TEST=..
>> 2. Update regulator subnode property as vout0
>> 3. Restore commented line in example
>> 4. blank line after interrupts property in example.
>> ---
>>   .../hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml        | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml
>> index ded1c115764b..a93b3f86ee87 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/pmbus/infineon,tda38640.yaml
>> @@ -30,6 +30,23 @@ properties:
>>         unconnected(has internal pull-down).
>>       type: boolean
>>   
>> +  interrupts:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  regulators:
>> +    type: object
>> +    description:
>> +      list of regulators provided by this controller.
>> +
>> +    properties:
>> +      vout0:
> 
> Why "vout0" if there's only one output? Is it called that in the
> documentation? I had a quick check but only saw it called "vout".
> Are there other related devices that would have multiple regulators
> that might end up sharing the binding?
> 

Primarily because that is what the PMBus core generates for the driver
because no one including me was aware that this is unacceptable
for single-output drivers. We now have commit 88b5970e92d0 ("hwmon:
(pmbus/core) Add helper macro to define single pmbus regulator").
I guess we can update the tda38640 driver to use the new macro
to register vout instead of vout0.

Guenter