linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: Add support for TI ADC1x8s102

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:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:27:10 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sascha Weisenberger <sascha.weisenberger@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: Add support for TI ADC1x8s102

On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:53 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2017-04-25 11:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:


> > > Where is a good example? Sorry,
> > > I still don't see how to make code out of your comments.
> > 
> > Mostly remove those ugly hacks and start over.
> 
> Still not a constructive answer.

You just didn't get.

Provide a driver without that ugly code and then we may think how to
make it work on existing boards without too much intrusion here or
there.

> > CS is a property of the host controller, not the slave devices.
> > 
> > Once I pointed to Mika's work for Galileo, perhaps you forgot. The
> > below is an example how to fix ACPI table using
> > 
> > https://github.com/westeri/meta-acpi/blob/master/recipes-bsp/acpi-ta
> > bles/samples/galileo/spi.asl
> > 
> > It's done for SPI1, but you easily can convert it to SPI0 and
> > corresponding properties.
> 
> So that information would be picked up by the existing SPI host
> controller driver, and we don't need anything beyond basic ACPI
> support
> in this driver?

Correct!

>  That is indeed appealing. Maybe we can make the board
> patch private then, until a firmware update is available. I'll split
> that part off.

Yes, that is what I meant.

> > Btw, we welcome any contribution to meta-acpi repository!
> 
> Shipping own DSDTs is no long-term path: we would be forced to provide
> separate images due to a single parameter being different in the DSDTs
> of the 2020 and 2040. And you cannot provide any overlay to adjust the
> table after boot, i.e. once we know on which board we are.
> 
> The dependency on meta-intel is also suboptimal (we will switch to a
> long-term supported kernel source soon), but that would probably be
> fixable.

Mika, do you have anything to comment on the above?

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy