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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:47:58 +0200 From: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de> To: Kevin Wells <kevin.wells@....com> CC: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>, "vitalywool@...il.com" <vitalywool@...il.com>, "khali@...ux-fr.org" <khali@...ux-fr.org>, "ben-linux@...ff.org" <ben-linux@...ff.org>, "grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Srinivas Bakki <srinivas.bakki@....com>, "aletes.xgr@...il.com" <aletes.xgr@...il.com>, "jonsmirl@...il.com" <jonsmirl@...il.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, arm@...nel.org, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] i2c: pnx: Fix bit definitions On 08/20/2012 06:26 PM, Kevin Wells wrote: >>>> This patch for i2c-pnx affects PNX4008 and LPC32xx (and LPC31xx, >>>> not yet in mainline). Can you please test and double-check the >>>> manuals of PNX4008 and LPC31xx? I only found this via the manual >>>> of LPC32xx but assume it's the same for the others, also. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance! >>> >>> Kevin, since the other manuals seem to be not easily available, can >>> you please check? >> >> Yes, would be great if someone at NXP could confirm that PNX actually >> uses the same IP core for the I2C controller as LPCs do (which is >> currently assumed by Linux anyway). > > I've never had my hands on a PNX4008 chip at NXP, but I do believe they > are the same IP. That specific I2C IP was used in a number of NXP/Phillips > chips besides the PNX4008/LPC32xx. I don't think there are any PNX4008's in > the wild, and even working in NXP, I can't find any non-marketing reference > material for that part (including the user manual). Considering this, it might be a good idea to remove support for PNX4008 (arch/arm/mach-pnx4008/) altogether. It's hard to maintain support for hardware which isn't available, even at NXP. It would also simplify maintenance of mach-lpc32xx because the overlap currently makes me always wonder if the respective changes still work with mach-pnx4008. Any opposition? Roland PS: I just wonder how mach-pnx4008 came into the kernel at all... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists