linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document pinctrl-ingenic

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: <f19fea79c2616455f5f08070923428cc@crapouillou.net>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:20:10 +0100
From:   Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Maarten ter Huurne <maarten@...ewalker.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...tec.com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux MIPS <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] Documentation: dt/bindings: Document
 pinctrl-ingenic

Le 2017-02-20 14:56, Linus Walleij a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net> 
> 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.

OK, but then each GPIO chip 'X' still need to know its offset in the 
register
area, which is (pinctrl_base + X * 0x100).
What's the best way to pass that info to the driver? (I assume it's not 
with
a custom DT binding...).

Regards,
-Paul