linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: imx: Add support for Logic PD i.MX6QD EVM

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:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:07:58 -0600
From:   Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>
To:     Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc:     "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: imx: Add support for Logic PD i.MX6QD EVM

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:19 AM Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:07 PM Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > +       reg_audio: regulator-audio {
> > +               pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +               pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_reg_audio>;
> > +               compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > +               regulator-name = "3v3_aud";
> > +               regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > +               regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > +               gpio = <&gpio1 29 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > +               enable-active-high;
> > +               regulator-always-on;
>
> It seems that the 'regulator-always-on' property is not needed in this case.
>
> > +&i2c1 {
> > +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +       pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c1>;
> > +       clock-frequency = <400000>;
> > +       status = "okay";
> > +
> > +       codec: wm8962@1a {
>
> Node name should be generic and label name should be specific, so:
>
> wm8962: codec@1a {
>
> > +       chosen {
> > +               stdout-path = &uart1;
> > +       };
> > +
> > +       memory@...00000 {
>
> Need to pass device_type = "memory";
>
> > +               reg = <0x10000000 0x80000000>;
> > +       };
> > +
> > +       reg_wl18xx_vmmc: regulator-wl18xx {
> > +               compatible = "regulator-fixed";
> > +               regulator-name = "vwl1837";
> > +               regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > +               regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
> > +               gpio = <&gpio7 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > +               startup-delay-us = <70000>;
> > +               enable-active-high;
> > +       };
> > +
>
> No need for this blank line.
>
> > +};
>
> > +&i2c3 {
> > +       clock-frequency = <100000>;
> > +       pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +       pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i2c3>;
> > +       status = "okay";
> > +
> > +       pmic: pfuze100@8 {
>
> pfuze100: pmic@8
>
> > +       tmp102_0: tmp102@4a {
>
> generic node name, please.

I have two temperature sensors.  Should I just call them tempsense0
and tempsense1?

>
> > +               compatible = "ti,tmp102";
> > +               reg = <0x4a>;
> > +               pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +               pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_tempsense>;
> > +               interrupt-parent = <&gpio6>;
> > +               interrupts = <15 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
> > +               #thermal-sensor-cells = <1>;
> > +       };
> > +
> > +       tmp102_1: tmp102@49 {
>
> Ditto
>
> > +               compatible = "ti,tmp102";
> > +               reg = <0x49>;
> > +               interrupt-parent = <&gpio6>;
> > +               interrupts = <15 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
> > +               #thermal-sensor-cells = <1>;
> > +       };
> > +
> > +       at24c64_mfg: at24@51 {

I have two eeproms.  One is a programmed by the factory with info like
serial number, model name, etc.  The other is blank and available for
users.

Should I name them something like 'eeprom_mfg' and 'eeprom_usr'?
>
> Ditto
>
> > +               compatible = "atmel,24c64";
> > +               pagesize = <32>;
> > +               read-only;      /* Manufacturing EEPROM programmed at factory */
> > +               reg = <0x51>;
> > +       };
> > +
> > +       at24c64_usr: at24@52 {
>
> Ditto
>
> > +       panel-lvds0 {
> > +               compatible = "ampire,am800480b3tmqw";
>
> Could not found this compatible documented.

I'll pull this out in V2.  I pushed a patch a while ago for this
display, but it's not been accepted yet, and I need to follow up on
this.
>
> > +&i2c1 {
> > +       ili_touch: ilitouch@26 {
>
> Generic node name, please.
>
> > +               compatible = "ili,ili2117a";
>
> Could not found this compatible documented.

I'll pull this out in V2.  I have a working driver, but I haven't
pushed it yet.  I'll add them back in once the driver's been pushed
and accepted.

thanks for reviewing this so quickly.

adam