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:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:20:10 +0100
From:   Paul Cercueil <>
To:     Linus Walleij <>
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

Le 2017-02-20 14:56, Linus Walleij a écrit :
> 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.

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


Powered by blists - more mailing lists