linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: rockchip: Fix the correct routing config for the gmac-m1 pins of rmii and rgmii

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 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:   Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:50:37 +0200
From:   Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     David Wu <david.wu@...k-chips.com>,
        Tao Huang <huangtao@...k-chips.com>,
        Andy Yan <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: rockchip: Fix the correct routing config for the gmac-m1 pins of rmii and rgmii

Hi Linus,

Am Samstag, 7. Oktober 2017, 12:32:51 CEST schrieb Linus Walleij:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 30. September 2017, 20:13:21 CEST schrieb David Wu:
> >> If the gmac-m1 optimization(bit10) is selected, the gpio function
> >> of gmac pins is not valid. We may use the rmii mode for gmac interface,
> >> the pins such as rx_d2, rx_d3, which the rgmii mode used, but rmii not
> >> used could be taken as gpio function. So gmac_rxd0m1 selects the bit2,
> >> and gmac_rxd0m3 select bit10 is more correct.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Wu <david.wu@...k-chips.com>
> >
> > the patch subject should mention the the rk3328 whose routing gets fixed
> > (like adding a simple "on rk3328" to it), otherwise
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
> 
> I added rk3328 to it, also assumed this Reviewed-by covers patch 1/2
> as well and applied both with your tag.

while I did mean to cross-check patch 1/2 separately with the soc manual,
I got sidetracked with my current vacation :-) . Anyway, it did look ok on
first glance then and I also cannot find issues with it now. So all is good.


Heiko