linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] pinctrl: tegra: Add DT binding for io pads control

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

Message-ID: <57110558.8010209@nvidia.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2016 20:44:32 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	<thierry.reding@...il.com>, <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	<gnurou@...il.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:	<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] pinctrl: tegra: Add DT binding for io pads control


On Friday 15 April 2016 08:44 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 15/04/16 15:12, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>
>>
>> All CSI pads are lined to single IO rail.
> I agree with this and from the data-sheet I see the rail that powers the
> CSI (and DSI) interfaces is called AVDD_DSI_CSI. But again, in the DT
> document you are referring to csia, csib, csic, csid, csie, csif as
> pins, but these don't appear to be physical pins, and this appears to be
> more of a software means to control power to the various csi_x pins.
>
> It seems to me that each of the existing CSI_A_xxx pins/pads should be
> mapped to or register with the appropriate power-down control and when
> all pads are set to inactive this then triggers the power-down of all
> the CSI_A_xxx pads.

I used pins as this is the property from pincon generic so that I can 
use the generic implementation.

Here, I will not go to the pin level control as HW does not support pin 
level control.

I will say the unit should be interface level. Should we say 
IO_GROUP_CSIA, IO_GROUP_CSIB etc?


>