linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] i2c: aspeed: added documentation for Aspeed I2C driver

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:32:03 +0930
From:   Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] i2c: aspeed: added documentation for Aspeed I2C driver

Hi Brendan,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@...gle.com> wrote:
> First off, someone pointed out to me that the mapping that I used between
> addresses and bus numbers is not actually valid for busses 8-14.
>
> This could be fixed by checking the offset, but I am wondering if that is
> the right way to do it. It seems like this is not completely trivial so
> maybe this should be specified in the device tree? If that is the case,
> should I do this as another reg entry or go back to the way I was doing it
> before?

I don't see an alternative way to derive these numbers. As you
mention, the block of SRAM in the middle of the IP screwing up the
linear mapping.

I suggest going back to what you have in v2, with a mention in the
commit message as to why the bus property is necessary.

Cheers,

Joel