linux-kernel - Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: add hym8563 binding

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

Date:	Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:14:21 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc:	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	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>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: add hym8563 binding

On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 02:46:11PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Montag, 2. Dezember 2013, 14:41:10 schrieb Mark Brown:
> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 08:47:42PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote:

> > > +Required properties:
> > > +- compatible: should be: "haoyu,hym8563"
> > > +- reg: i2c address
> > > +- gpios: alarm interrupt gpio

> > Why is this specified as a GPIO and not as an interrupt?
> 
> sorry for the late reply, but it seems I got somehow droppen from your 
> recipient list, so just found this mail on the mailinglist.

Your mail had reply to set on it.

> In v1 I specified the interrupt and the gpio. Apart from the resulting 
> duplication of information this also resulted in the gpio only being requested 
> but never used itself, which Mark Rutland did not seem to like this much :-) .
> 
> As I'd like to keep the sanity check that really requesting the interrupt gpio 
> always provided thru a gpio. As there are other drivers going this route it 
> looked like an ok way to go.

> So what would be the real way to go? Specify only the interrupt, only the gpio 
> or both?

Specify only the interrupt if it's genuinely an interrupt - requiring a
GPIO is broken as not all interrupt controllers are also GPIOs.  There
are some OMAP drivers that are broken in this regard but they shouldn't
be doing that.  Only use a GPIO specifier if it's used as a GPIO.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)