linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] i2c: add support for Socionext SynQuacer I2C controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:18:04 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] i2c: add support for Socionext SynQuacer I2C controller

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 26 February 2018 at 17:16, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:

> Perhaps we could agree on the binding first? Currently, I have the following
>
>     Device (I2C0) {
>       Name (_HID, "SCX0003")
>       Name (_UID, Zero)
>       Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () {
>         Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, SYNQUACER_I2C1_BASE, SYNQUACER_I2C1_SIZE)

>         Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveHigh, Exclusive) { 197 }

>       })
>
>       Name (_DSD, Package ()  // _DSD: Device-Specific Data
>       {
>         ToUUID ("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
>         Package () {
>           Package (2) { "socionext,pclk-rate", 62500000 },
>         }
>       })
>

> and I don't intend to add 'clock-frequency' here because it would be
> redundant anyway.

Right.

> Does this look sane?

I can't say about property name, but otherwise yes.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko