linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] dt-bindings: iio: Add bindings for sx9310 sensor

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:   Thu, 06 Aug 2020 16:03:35 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Campello <campello@...omium.org>,
        LKML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, open list:
        IIO SUBSYSTEM AND DRIVERS <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, ;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] dt-bindings: iio: Add bindings for sx9310 sensor

Quoting Rob Herring (2020-08-06 15:12:34)
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:14 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 20:01:06 -0600
> > Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:00 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is mostly a decision for Rob to make, but I would make it required
> > > > because the device is always an io channel provider. It may be that it
> > > > isn't providing anything in the DT to something else in the DT but it is
> > > > providing this information somewhere so always having to spell that out
> > > > is simple and doesn't hurt.
> > >
> > > I agree. If the user is split in a board file or overlay, we don't
> > > want to have to be adding it to the provider at that time.
> >
> > That is perhaps a reasonable view point for devices with channels that
> > are likely to be used by consumer drivers, but in this particular case we
> > are talking about a proximity sensor.  So far I don't think we
> > have any consumer drivers for this type of sensor (I might have forgotten
> > one of course!)
> 
> Indeed, I didn't consider whether it made sense in the first place. So
> should it just not be specified at all in this case? I can't really
> picture what the usecase for a consumer node would be.
> 

I was thinking that a WiFi DT node may directly grab the channel from
this device and use this for SAR power changes. That would avoid going
all the way to userspace to figure out that something is close proximity
and then tell WiFi to reduce power.