linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] ARM: dts: bcm283x: Define standard pinctrl groups in the gpio node.

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: <1473320928.6698.28.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 08 Sep 2016 09:48:48 +0200
From:   Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
Cc:     Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, swarren@...dotorg.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] ARM: dts: bcm283x: Define standard pinctrl groups
 in the gpio node.

On Mi, 2016-09-07 at 11:50 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi Gerd,
> >
> >> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com> hat am 7. September 2016 um 12:31
> >> geschrieben:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
> >> 
> >> The BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf documentation specifies what the
> >> function selects do for the pins, and there are a bunch of obvious
> >> groupings to be made.  With these created, we'll be able to replace
> >> bcm2835-rpi.dtsi's main "set all of these pins to alt0" with
> >> references to specific groups we want enabled.
> >
> > on IMX/MXS platform it's unwanted to add all possible muxes in the dtsi file. So
> > i would suggest to add only the actually used muxes. That makes it easier to
> > maintain.
> 
> On the other hand, I find that having to go back to the docs for
> determining the fsels is worse than just verifying and defining them
> here all at once.

Agreeing here.  IMO it is nice to have them all even if unused for
documentation purposes.

> Maintaining has also gotten harder because our DTs
> are split across 32 and 64-bit ARM, so rpi3 changes that require adding
> one of these pinmux definitions back to the dtsi would require painful
> cross-branch merges.

It'll also easily cause merge conflicts.

cheers,
  Gerd