linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: Add qualcomm-bluetooth

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:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 19:42:56 +0100
From:   Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Linux Bluetooth mailing list 
        <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: Add
 qualcomm-bluetooth

Hi Bjoern,

>>> +		bt-disable-n-gpios = <&pm8994_gpios 19 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> 
>> can we use a common name here. I think that Nokia and Broadcom drivers
>> define one. And if this is the enable/shutdown GPIO, we should name it
>> consistently across all manufacturers. It essentially does the same on
>> Bluetooth UART chips no matter what chip is behind them.
>> 
> 
> Broadcomm has a device-wakup-gpios and Nokia has bluetooth-wakup-gpios.
> It might be that these behave in the same way, but from the description
> they only trigger the wakeup.

that is something that we might need to start fixing. I really prefer if we name the GPIOs a bit more consistent.

> The reason for the proposed naming here is that the pin is named
> "BT_DISABLE_N" in the datasheet.

That is not a reason I buy. So the next board comes around that labels it in the data sheet BT_DISABLE_YEAH_SUPER_GREAT and you send me a patch to the driver to look for that name. If the GPIO does the same thing, I couldn’t care less what the data sheet says. That might be a comment in the DT file, but it should not pollute the driver code.

A new board should not require driver changes, you just ship a new DT for that board and an existing driver hopefully just does the job. No matter how someone named a GPIO in a piece of paper.

Regards

Marcel