linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] Documentation: ad5592r: Added devicetree bindings documentation

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

Message-ID: <5634A016.4020801@kernel.org>
Date:	Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:03:50 +0000
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Paul Cercueil <paul.cercueil@...log.com>,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
	Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
	Antonio Fiol <antonio@...l.es>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] Documentation: ad5592r: Added devicetree bindings
 documentation

On 27/10/15 16:13, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On 13/10/15 10:37, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul.cercueil@...log.com>
>> Looks good to me, but as it is a little bit 'different' and we are
>> defining entirely new generic bindings (the channel modes stuff)
>> I would like some more input.  It might be overkill but we do
>> of course have the pinctl framework which covers this sort of
>> thing... Might be worth considering if using that to get the unified
>> bindings might make sense here...
>>
>> cc'd Linus in case he wants to comment on this.
>>
>> It would obviously be a very heavy weight solution to the problem
>> so I'm far from convinced it makes sense - or even fits the usecase
>> terrible well.  Just thought I'd mention the possibility.
> 
> There is something of a grey area between "definately pin control"
> and "some extra pin hardware duct-taped to something else".
> 
> I guess that is natural, life is full of grey areas...
> 
> Basically if there are plenty of pins and functions, local solutions
> to the problem will not scale. Then it is necessary to go ahead
> and implement full pin control. Especially for say a big BGA
> package or so with lots and lots of pins.
> 
> It is is a few pins or they just alter between similar functionality
> (like different graphic modes) I think local solutions are OK.
Thanks Linus.  Makes sense

--
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/