linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: gpio: pca953x: add compatibility for pcal6524 and pcal9555a

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: <CAHp75Ve8Y2AOm36KwuVUhssLR7Q82KS1SzB1tcKw57_LdqkKhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:56:16 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org, kernel@...a-handheld.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: gpio: pca953x: add compatibility for pcal6524
 and pcal9555a

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:00 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@...delico.com> wrote:
> The Pyra-Handheld originally used the tca6424 but recently we have
> replaced it by the pin and package compatible pcal6524. So let's
> add this to the bindings and the driver.
>
> And while we are at it, the pcal9555a does not have a compatible entry
> either but is already supported by the device id table.


> +       { "pcal6524", 24 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT | PCA_PCAL, },
>         { "pcal9555a", 16 | PCA953X_TYPE | PCA_INT | PCA_PCAL, },

So, from your description I can get that PCA_PCAL is redundant for
6524. Is it correct? What does L means in the model code?
Perhaps we need to rename PCA_PCAL to be more specific?


> +       { .compatible = "nxp,pcal6524", .data = OF_953X(24, PCA_INT), },
> +       { .compatible = "nxp,pcal9555a", .data = OF_953X(16, PCA_INT), },

Other way around, you missed PCA_PCAL in the second case.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko