linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Support ROHM BD96801 scalable 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zjzt8mOW6dO_7XNV@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 17:38:26 +0200
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Support ROHM BD96801 scalable PMIC

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 10:03:43AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 5/9/24 08:08, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > > > > So if we arrange to supply a name when we register multiple domains
> > > > > > things should work fine?

> Thanks for the guidance Mark. The controller name is not a problem. Problem
> is that I don't see a (proper) way to supply a name for the IRQ domain which
> gets registered by regmap-IRQ. IRQ domain code picks the name for the domain
> by the device-tree node. Both of our IRQ controllers would be instantiated
> from same node => the IRQ domain will get same name => debugfs will
> conflict.

That's why I'm suggesting to add something - just put a name field in
the struct.

> My "solution" was simply dropping the ERRB IRQ from the driver (for now at
> least). I did send that as a series without 'RFC' - but made a mistake and
> restarted the versioning from v1. I am currently working with 2 other PMICs,
> one of them does also provide similar setup of two IRQ lines. Thus, I think
> being able to provide a name (suffix?) for IRQ domain when registering it
> instead of just using the name of the DT node is something I should look
> into. It's just nice to know someone else thinks it is valid approach.

Yes.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)