linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 09/20] mfd: sec: Add support for S2MPG11 PMIC via ACPM

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: <f1e9a9e35f7c16d8db0e39128eb184f3f42b7d02.camel@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 21:56:41 +0000
From: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, 
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,  Liam Girdwood
 <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Bartosz
 Golaszewski	 <brgl@...ev.pl>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Peter Griffin	 <peter.griffin@...aro.org>, Will McVicker
 <willmcvicker@...gle.com>, 	kernel-team@...roid.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/20] mfd: sec: Add support for S2MPG11 PMIC via ACPM

Hi Mark,

On Fri, 2025-11-14 at 16:46 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 09:43:29PM +0000, André Draszik wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-11-13 at 16:25 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> > > > +static const struct mfd_cell s2mpg11_devs[] = {
> > > > +	MFD_CELL_NAME("s2mpg11-meter"),
> > > > +	MFD_CELL_BASIC("s2mpg11-regulator", NULL, NULL, 0, S2MPG11_BUCKBOOST),
> 
> > > This is highly irregular - in that, we've never done this before.
> 
> > > We're going to need to have Mark look at this.
> 
> > I did see this in at least one other driver, ah yes at least
> > drivers/mfd/88pm860x-core.c is doing something similar, maybe others, too
> > (I stopped there).
> 
> Other drivers doing something doesn't mean that they're following good
> practice.  We do also have drivers which have multiple identical IP
> blocks and are passing in resources with base address, interrupt and
> whatever for the IP blocks which is different to just passing a Linux
> internal ID number through.

That's fine and I understand that. My reply was in relation to that this
has never been done before.

I'm happy to use an alternative approach that can solve my problem, if there
is something that I have missed. I think the commit message for patch 8
describes the problem in better detail than this one.

Cheers,
Andre'