linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Explain lack of child dependency in simple-mfd

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: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:17:56 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mfd: Explain lack of child dependency in
 simple-mfd

On Sun, 16 Jun 2024, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> Common mistake of usage of 'simple-mfd' compatible is a dependency of
> children on resources acquired and managed by the parent, e.g. clocks.
> Extend the simple-mfd documentation to cover this case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd.txt | 13 +++++++------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd.txt
> index 336c0495c8a3..98b4340b65f3 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd.txt
> @@ -18,12 +18,13 @@ A typical MFD can be:
>  Optional properties:
>  
>  - compatible : "simple-mfd" - this signifies that the operating system should
> -  consider all subnodes of the MFD device as separate devices akin to how
> -  "simple-bus" indicates when to see subnodes as children for a simple
> -  memory-mapped bus. For more complex devices, when the nexus driver has to
> -  probe registers to figure out what child devices exist etc, this should not
> -  be used. In the latter case the child devices will be determined by the
> -  operating system.
> +  consider all subnodes of the MFD device as separate and independent devices
> +  akin to how "simple-bus" indicates when to see subnodes as children for a
> +  simple memory-mapped bus. "Independent devices" means that children do not

I'm not against the change, but I think it can be phased better.

Quoting the new part and going on to explain what you mean by it doesn't
flow very well.  Are you able to massage it so it reads a little more
nicely please?

> +  need any resources to be provided by the parent device.
> +  For more complex devices, when the nexus driver has to probe registers to
> +  figure out what child devices exist etc, this should not be used. In the
> +  latter case the child devices will be determined by the operating system.
>  
>  - ranges: Describes the address mapping relationship to the parent. Should set
>    the child's base address to 0, the physical address within parent's address
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]