linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: mfd: Add rk816 binding

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: <f892767c-7e01-4099-b674-0eca6edf7bba@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:02:11 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Liam Girdwood
 <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>, Zhang Qing <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: mfd: Add rk816 binding

On 23/03/2024 11:56, Alex Bee wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Am 23.03.24 um 11:32 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 23/03/2024 09:58, Alex Bee wrote:
>>> Add DT binding document for Rockchip's RK816 PMIC
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> changes since v1:
>>>    - lowercase/hyphens for regulator node names
>>>    - rename "-reg" to "-regulator" to make node names generic
>> I don't understand why did you do it. I did not ask for it. If you want
>> to rename, drop redundant regulator or reg suffix from node names.
> You didn't ask for that, thats true.
> 
> I did it regardless, since node names should be generic and the "-reg"

device node names, here you do not have devices.

> suffix is not. They are all subnodes of "regulators", indeed, but I don't
> think dropping the suffix completely makes the binding any better, since
> there is a boost(-switch) and an otg-switch which are also subnodes of
> "regulators" and they are just switches.

Adding "regulator" suffix does not make them more generic... anyway,
that's not expected pattern. First, do you see such code anywhere?
Second, the regulator node names should be usually named as the name of
physical component. That's the most common pattern.

Please do not bring some exceptions from coding style just for your
device. Your device is not special.

You did not respond to rest of my comments, so I assume you agree 100%
with them.

Also, please trim the replies from unneeded context.

Best regards,
Krzysztof