linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: Add generic support passing secondary devices addresses

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: <20160419131631.GG1725@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:16:31 +0300
From:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc:	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jean-Michel Hautbois <jhautbois@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, galak@...eaurora.org,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, mark.rutland@....com,
	pawel.moll@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org, wsa@...-dreams.de,
	laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com,
	Jean-Michel Hautbois <jean-michel.hautbois@...-labs.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: Add generic support passing secondary devices
 addresses

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:02:06PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 04/19/2016 02:40 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 05:26:54PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> >> A generic API by indexes wont work. The order between DT and ACPI will most
> >> likely be different. I'd even assume that the order will be different with
> >> ACPI for the same device on different platforms.
> > 
> > Yes, unfortunately that might be possible.
> > 
> >> If we want to support ACPI over the same interface drivers need to provide a
> >> lookup table that maps a name to the index.
> > 
> > Indeed something like we already have with GPIOs. The lookup table could
> > be filled from names in _DSD where it is available.
> 
> Does that mean you are OK with the patch as it is?

It is still not clear to me if this supports more than two addresses and
if it does, how those are represented in DT and how the function can be
used to fetch all those additional addresses.