linux-kernel - trivial-devices with vdd-supply: true

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1ee8fc6f-5299-4ba5-bb61-14b4351c0708@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 13:22:35 +0100
From: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: trivial-devices with vdd-supply: true

Hi,

I am trying to figure out the current policy to add trivial devices
(I2C/SPI devices with at most one interrupt) to trivial-devices.yaml or
include a dedicated file.

Apparently, bindings for the same sort of devices where "vdd-supply" is
provided require their own file, and I wonder why there is no
"vdd/supplied/whatever-trivial-devices.yaml".

Instead, files with trivial bindings + "vdd-supply: true" are added on a
regular basis. That property is not saying anything specific about the
device beyond that it needs a supply, which is very common. Is that
intended and no more generic bindings are desired?

On the other hand, trivial-devices.yaml includes several devices that do
require a single supply (e.g. several sensors), but it is not explicitly
documented. Did the requirement of providing vdd-supply arise after
those devices were added to trivial-devices? I think that some devices
that were added to trivial-devices in the last months could have also
had a vdd-supply property, so I am not sure about the rules to choose
one way or another.

Thanks and best regards,
Javier Carrasco