netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] dt-bindings: net: Add documentation for optional regulators

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 20 May 2022 10:15:55 +0200
From:   LABBE Corentin <clabbe@...libre.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        calvin.johnson@....nxp.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        jernej.skrabec@...il.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        kuba@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        pabeni@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, samuel@...lland.org,
        wens@...e.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] dt-bindings: net: Add documentation for optional
 regulators

Le Fri, May 20, 2022 at 09:57:26AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski a écrit :
> On 19/05/2022 17:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 01:33:21PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 19/05/2022 13:31, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:55:28AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 18/05/2022 22:09, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> > 
> >>>>>> +  regulators:
> >>>>>> +    description:
> >>>>>> +       List of phandle to regulators needed for the PHY
> > 
> >>>>> I don't understand that... is your PHY defining the regulators or using
> >>>>> supplies? If it needs a regulator (as a supply), you need to document
> >>>>> supplies, using existing bindings.
> > 
> >>>> They're trying to have a generic driver which works with any random PHY
> >>>> so the binding has no idea what supplies it might need.
> > 
> >>> OK, that makes sense, but then question is why not using existing
> >>> naming, so "supplies" and "supply-names"?
> > 
> >> I'm not saying it is not possible, but in general, the names are not
> >> interesting. All that is needed is that they are all on, or
> >> potentially all off to save power on shutdown. We don't care how many
> >> there are, or what order they are enabled.
> > 
> > I think Krzysztof is referring to the name of the property rather than
> > the contents of the -names property there.
> 
> Yes, exactly. Existing pattern for single regulator supply is
> "xxx-supply", so why this uses a bit different pattern instead of
> something more consistent ("supplies" and "supply-names")?
> 

I agree that supplies and supply-names are better.
But in another answer Rob is against it, so if I understand well, we are stuck to use individual xxx-supply.
I will try to create a new regulator_get_bulk_all() which scan all properties matching xxx-supply