linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: dts: qcom: msm8974-hammerhead: add device tree bindings for vibrator

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: <20190625005434.GA6401@onstation.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:54:34 -0400
From:   Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: dts: qcom: msm8974-hammerhead: add device
 tree bindings for vibrator

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:29:29AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:53 PM Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org> wrote:
> 
> > 2) Do what Linus suggests above. We can use v1 of this series from last
> >    September (see below for link) that adds this to the pwm subsystem.
> >    The locking would need to be added so that it won't conflict with the
> >    clk subsystem. This can be tied into the input subsystem with the
> >    existing pwm-vibra driver.
> 
> What I imagined was that the clk driver would double as a pwm driver.
> Just register both interfaces.
> 
> There are already plenty of combines clk+reset drivers for example.
> 
> Otherwise I'm all for this approach (but that's just me).

I agree that this makes sense. I especially like that it'll allow us
to use the existing pwm-vibra driver in the input subsystem with this
approach.

Brian