linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 3/3] spi: dt-bindings: document zero value for spi-{rx,tx}-bus-width properties

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, 3 Dec 2020 13:35:40 +0000
From:   "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@...log.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "Bogdan, Dragos" <Dragos.Bogdan@...log.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/3] spi: dt-bindings: document zero value for
 spi-{rx,tx}-bus-width properties



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 4:26 PM
> To: Ardelean, Alexandru <alexandru.Ardelean@...log.com>
> Cc: linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>; devicetree
> <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>; Mark Brown
> <broonie@...nel.org>; Bogdan, Dragos <Dragos.Bogdan@...log.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] spi: dt-bindings: document zero value for spi-{rx,tx}-
> bus-width properties
> 
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 3:08 PM Alexandru Ardelean
> <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com> wrote:
> >
> > Following a change to the SPI framework, providing a value of zero for
> > 'spi-rx-bus-width' and 'spi-tx-bus-width' is now possible and will
> > essentially mean than no RX or TX is allowed.
> 
> than -> that
> 
> I'm wondering if we have a possibility to strict this for controllers that always
> duplex (I assume that schema works in a way that the generic bindings is most
> relaxed in comparison to the device specific ones in case of the same binding in
> question).

No idea here.

> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko