linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 15/18] drivers/fsi: Add documentation for GPIO based FSI master

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: <CAA0LjjVMh4DNH7BoF_pgQHWowS0d4_LBue_VP20GkydHSgcLow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:09:38 -0600
From:   Christopher Bostic <christopher.lee.bostic@...il.com>
To:     Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        geert+renesas@...der.be,
        Open List OF Flattened dev tree bindings 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Moderated list: ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Linux open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Alistair Popple <alistair@...ple.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Chris Bostic <cbostic@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/18] drivers/fsi: Add documentation for GPIO based
 FSI master

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> From this:
>
>>> +
>>> +The standard FSI master node
>>> +----------------------------
>>> +This node describes a FSI master implmemented fully in hardware
>>> +with dedicated input/output pins required for its function (i.e.
>>> +not using generic GPIO pins).
>>> +Required property:
>>> +    compatible = "ibm,fsi-master"
>
> and this:
>
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> +fsi-master {
>>> +    compatible = "ibm,fsi-master-gpio", "ibm,fsi-master";
>>
>> From the description, these should be mutually exclusive.
>
> I agree with Rob here. The intention is for "ibm,fsi-master" to be an
> abstract master -- simply indicating that this node describes a master,
> with no specific implementation, and "ibm,fsi-master-gpio" to be a
> GPIO-based implementation. A hardware-based FSI master would have a
> different compatible value, based on the hardware.
>
> We should remove references to implementations in the "The standard FSI
> master node" section, because this is independent of implementation.
>

Hi,

OK will make that change for version 4.

>>> +    clk-gpios = <&gpio 0>, <&gpio 6>;
>>> +    data-gpios = <&gpio 1>, <&gpio 7>;
>>> +    enable-gpios = <&gpio 2>, <&gpio 8>;
>>> +    trans-gpios = <&gpio 3>, <&gpio 9>;
>>> +    mux-gpios = <&gpio 4>, <&gpio 10>;
>
> Do we support multiple-link masters? This example implies a 2-link
> master.
>

Should we start with a single link in this case?  To start off with
only one link is supported by the master.

Thanks

> Cheers,
>
>
> Jeremy