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  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, 20 Feb 2017 14:56:41 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <>
To:     Paul Cercueil <>
Cc:     Rob Herring <>, Mark Rutland <>,
        Ralf Baechle <>,
        Ulf Hansson <>,
        Boris Brezillon <>,
        Thierry Reding <>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <>,
        Maarten ter Huurne <>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <>,
        Paul Burton <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Linux MIPS <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        James Hogan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document pinctrl-ingenic

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Paul Cercueil <> wrote:

> I was thinking that instead of having one pinctrl-ingenic instance covering
> 0x600 of register space, and 6 instances of gpio-ingenic having 0x100 each,
> I could just have 6 instances of pinctrl-ingenic, each one with an instance
> of gpio-ingenic declared as a sub-node, each handling just 0x100 of memory
> space.

My head is spinning,  but I think I get it. What is wrong with the solution
I proposed with one pin control instance covering the whole 0x600 and with 6
subnodes of GPIO?

The GPIO nodes do not even have to have an address range associated with
them you know, that can be distributed out with regmap code accessing
the parent regmap.

Linus Walleij

Powered by blists - more mailing lists