linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] Documentation: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol

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]

Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:55:36 -0500
From:   Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:     Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>, Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Andrew F . Davis" <afd@...com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        dt list <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] Documentation: Add support for TI System Control
 Interface (TI-SCI) protocol

On 09/05/2016 02:09 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:
> On 02/09/16 23:27, Dave Gerlach wrote:
>> On 09/02/2016 12:07 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:06:43AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> +
>>>>> +TI-SCI Client Device Node:
>>>>> +========================
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Client nodes refer to the required TI-SCI device using the "ti,sci"
>>>>> property.
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned for power domains, for clients that are self contained
>>>> (i.e. a single function) I think the should be child nodes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback. I think we should be able to do that and also
>>> assume you have no further improvements you'd like to see here.
>>>
>>> Looking at current Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>> -> it makes sense to stick along the same lines as you mentioned.
>>>
>>> Dave, Tero: do you guys have any objections?
>>
>> No objections, I think this is a logical move.
>
> Yea, sounds like a valid change. I believe you are going to post a new
> version so I can modify the clock driver also accordingly?

Just closing the loop here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/6/747 posted. 
the changes are in binding - clk driver itself should'nt by itself 
have any changes.


-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon