linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/11] dt-bindings: i2c: Discard i2c-slave flag from the DW I2C example

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]

Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 21:22:56 +0300
From:   Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/11] dt-bindings: i2c: Discard i2c-slave flag from
 the DW I2C example

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:13:38PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:33:51PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > Rob,
> > Could you pay attention to this patch? The patchset review procedure is
> > nearly over, while the DT part is only partly reviewed by you.
> 

> Pretty sure I commented on this. Not sure what version, you're sending 
> new versions too fast. Give people time to review.

Yeah, you did. Sorry for sending the new versions very fast. Normally I prefer
to keep up with comments so to past a particular maintainer review as fast as
possible without long delays. In my experience the longer you wait, the lesser
maintainers remember about your patchset, the harder for one to continue the
next versions review.

Regarding this patch the brand new version on is v6:
[PATCH v6 02/11] dt-bindings: i2c: Convert DW I2C slave to the DW I2C master example

Could you please find it in your email log? I've left a note there for you about
options what we can do with this case.

-Sergey

> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > -Sergey
> > 
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:30:37PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > dtc currently doesn't support I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS flag set in the
> > > i2c "reg" property. If it is the compiler will print a warning:
> > > 
> > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@...0000/eeprom@64: I2C bus unit address format error, expected "40000064"
> > > Warning (i2c_bus_reg): /example-2/i2c@...0000/eeprom@64:reg: I2C address must be less than 10-bits, got "0x40000064"
> > > 
> > > In order to silence dtc up let's discard the flag from the DW I2C DT
> > > binding example for now. Just revert this commit when dtc is fixed.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
> > > Cc: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>
> > > Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
> > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Changelog v3:
> > > - This is a new patch created as a result of the Rob request to remove
> > >   the EEPROM-slave bit setting in the DT binndings example until the dtc
> > >   is fixed.
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > > index 4bd430b2b41d..101d78e8f19d 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml
> > > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ examples:
> > >  
> > >        eeprom@64 {
> > >          compatible = "linux,slave-24c02";
> > > -        reg = <0x40000064>;
> > > +        reg = <0x64>;
> 
> This is wrong though because "linux,slave-24c02" should have bit 30 set. 
> (And either the unit-address was wrong or we can define the unit-address 
> does not include the high bits.)
> 
> Rob