linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] Documentation: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol

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]

Date:   Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:09:10 +0300
From:   Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>
To:     Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Andrew F . Davis" <afd@...com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        dt list <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] Documentation: Add support for TI System Control
 Interface (TI-SCI) protocol

On 02/09/16 23:27, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 12:07 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> Rob,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:06:43AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> +
>>>> +TI-SCI Client Device Node:
>>>> +========================
>>>> +
>>>> +Client nodes refer to the required TI-SCI device using the "ti,sci"
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned for power domains, for clients that are self contained
>>> (i.e. a single function) I think the should be child nodes.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. I think we should be able to do that and also
>> assume you have no further improvements you'd like to see here.
>>
>> Looking at current Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>> -> it makes sense to stick along the same lines as you mentioned.
>>
>> Dave, Tero: do you guys have any objections?
>
> No objections, I think this is a logical move.

Yea, sounds like a valid change. I believe you are going to post a new 
version so I can modify the clock driver also accordingly?

-Tero