linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: STi: Supply I2C configuration to STiH416 SoC

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

Message-ID: <20130919153237.GA7071@lee--X1>
Date:	Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:32:37 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Maxime COQUELIN <maxime.coquelin@...com>
Cc:	Srinivas KANDAGATLA <srinivas.kandagatla@...com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen GALLIMORE <stephen.gallimore@...com>,
	Stuart MENEFY <stuart.menefy@...com>,
	Gabriel FERNANDEZ <gabriel.fernandez@...com>,
	Olivier CLERGEAUD <olivier.clergeaud@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: STi: Supply I2C configuration to STiH416 SoC

> > Am not very comfortable with this idea.
> >
> > As there is no guarantee that the interrupt number/memory map and the
> > i2c numbering will be same in future SOCs or other IPs.
> >
> > You might be already aware that the number of i2cs on each SOC are
> > different as example on STiH415 we have 10 SSCs and on STiH416 we have
> > 11 SSCs. So, At what point you decide that which devices/IPs should be
> > in stih41x and which should in stih415/Stih416?
> Yes, I know there is one more SSC on STiH416.
> 
> On one hand, this could add some confusion. But on the other hand,
> someone who will need to activate a SSP will know which one he has
> to activate.
> 
> > Each i2c node will save around 5 lines if we common it up, but if the
> > interrupt number or map changes this difference will be negligible.
> >
> > Common up at this level and mixing un-common ones in stih415.dtsi or
> > stih416.dtsi will add confusion to readers as the information is split
> > at multiple places.
> I agree it will be messy if one part of the node declared at one place,
> and the rest at another place.
> >
> > IMO the common up idea sounds good but reduces the readability and has
> > no effect on final dtb size.
> 
> Fair enough. Lee, are you ok with keeping it as is?

To be honest I haven't taken a look at the layout of the dts[i] files
yet, so I can't really comment. Srini knows then better than anyone,
so if he says it doesn't make sense, then I'm happy to take his word
for it.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/