linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: da850: Add node for pullup/pulldown pinconf

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:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:33:38 -0800
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
Cc:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Axel Haslam <ahaslam@...libre.com>,
        Alexandre Bailon <abailon@...libre.com>,
        Bartosz Gołaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: da850: Add node for pullup/pulldown pinconf

David Lechner <david@...hnology.com> writes:

> On 11/23/2016 05:12 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 08:59 AM, David Lechner wrote:
>>> This SoC has a separate pin controller for configuring pullup/pulldown
>>> bias on groups of pins.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 5 +++++
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> index 8945815..1c0224c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> @@ -210,6 +210,11 @@
>>>  			};
>>>
>>>  		};
>>> +		pinconf: pin-controller@...00c {
>>> +			compatible = "ti,da850-pupd";
>>> +			reg = <0x22c00c 0x8>;
>>> +			status = "disabled";
>>> +		};
>>
>> Can you please place this below the i2c1 node. I am trying to keep the
>> nodes sorted by unit address. I know thats broken in many places today,
>> but lets add the new ones where they should eventually end up.
>
> I can do this, but it seems that the predominant sorting pattern here
> is to keep subsystems together (e.g. all i2c are together, all uart
> are together, etc.)
>
> Would a separate patch to sort everything by unit address to get this
> cleaned up be acceptable?

No thanks. That kind of thing is the needless churn that gets us flamed.

Kevin