linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 8/9] pwm: add documentation for pwm push-pull 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: <20181012121552.GE31561@ulmo>
Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:15:52 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
Cc:     shc_work@...l.ru, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        corbet@....net, nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 8/9] pwm: add documentation for pwm push-pull
 mode

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:01:25PM +0300, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
> Add documentation for PWM push-pull mode.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt |  2 ++
>  Documentation/pwm.txt                         | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h                 |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt
> index 7c8aaac43f92..6a60c0fca112 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt
> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ Optionally, the pwm-specifier can encode a number of flags (defined in
>  - PWM_MODE_COMPLEMENTARY: PWM complementary working mode (for PWM channels
>  with two outputs); if not specified, the default for PWM channel will be
>  used
> +- PWM_MODE_PUSH_PULL: PWM push-pull working modes (for PWM channels with
> +two outputs); if not specified the default for PWM channel will be used

What if somebody has this in the DT:

	PWM_MODE_COMPLEMENTARY | PWM_MODE_PUSH_PULL

which one takes precedence, or do we reject it?

Wouldn't it be preferable to either move the modes into an extra field
within the flags field, or perhaps even add another field?

I guess since Rob's already acked this, that concern may be unfounded.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)