linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 0/6] Driver for at91 usart in spi mode

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: <20180912073056.GA2557@piout.net>
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:30:56 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        radu_nicolae.pirea@....ro, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/6] Driver for at91 usart in spi mode

On 11/09/2018 23:43:02+0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > I haven't read it, but I believe it's not unlike Renesas SCIF, which is
> > served by both drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c and drivers/spi/spi-sh-sci.c.
> > But the latter is not used from DT, so we haven't experienced (and solved)
> > the similar issue yet.
> > 
> > Would it work if the UART driver and SPI driver would match against the
> > same compatible value, but the UART driver would do in its probe()
> > function:
> > 
> >     device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev, "atmel,usart-mode", &opmode);
> >     if (opmode != AT91_USART_MODE_SERIAL)
> >         return ENODEV;
> > 
> > while the SPI driver would do:
> > 
> >     device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev, "atmel,usart-mode", &opmode);
> >     if (opmode != AT91_USART_MODE_SPI)
> >         return ENODEV;
> > 
> > ? No MFD driver involved.
> 
> I haven't looked at the code in a while, but if memory serves I
> believe platform code gives up once it has found its first match, so
> by doing this, one of the drivers will never be matched/probed.
> 
> It's midnight here, so cracking out the datasheet isn't going to
> happen just now, but it's my current belief that if the IP serves 2
> very different modes of operation, even if the registers are in a
> shared space, they could have their own compatible strings in DT.
> 
> That is what the MFD driver provides after all.  Why would it be okay
> to allocate different compatible strings from the MFD, but not in the
> Device Tree?
> 
> It would be the easiest solution.
> 
> Has Rob commented on this yet?
> 

V4 of the bindings were acked by Rob and you:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10428087/


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com