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: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:25:42 -0700 From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com> To: Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org> CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>, Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...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-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] mfd: devicetree: bindings: Add Qualcomm RPM DT binding On Tue 30 Sep 09:02 PDT 2014, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@...ymobile.com> wrote: > > > On Wed 24 Sep 09:39 PDT 2014, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > >> > >> On Sep 22, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@...ymobile.com> wrote: > >> > > > > [..] > > > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.txt > > > > [..] > > > >>> +- qcom,ipc: > >>> + Usage: required > >>> + Value type: <prop-encoded-array> > >>> + > >>> + Definition: three entries specifying the outgoing ipc bit used for > >>> + signaling the RPM: > >>> + - phandle to a syscon node representing the apcs registers > >>> + - u32 representing offset to the register within the syscon > >>> + - u32 representing the ipc bit within the register > >>> + > >> > >> Does this really ever differ for the SoCs, and even if it does why do we need > >> to encode it in DT. Can’t we determine it via the compatible setting? > >> > > > > The two offsets could be hard coded, especially based on the compatible. > > > > But I don't know if it's worth respinning this just to get those two number out > > of here. Also this is now "symmetric" with the smd use cases, where it > > shouldn't be hard coded. > > I do think its worth respinning until the DT is agreed to as we shouldn’t > be changing the binding. > Correct, if there's valid reason for it. > I’m not sure how being ‘symmetric’ with the smd use case maters if > we are treating this RPM support vs RPM-SMD as two different things. > Not rpm-smd but smd. Which is also used on family a and uses the same kpss-gcc (or apcs) node as rpm for outgoing ipc on those platforms. Regards, Bjorn -- 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