linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am65: Add support for UHS-I modes in MMCSD1 subsystem

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, 11 May 2021 22:10:42 +0530
From:   Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>
To:     Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
CC:     Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am65: Add support for UHS-I modes
 in MMCSD1 subsystem

Hi Nishanth, Jan,

On 11/05/21 10:03 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 17:26-20210511, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> +&sdhci1 {
>>>>> +	no-1-8-v;
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Let's move that to k3-am65-iot2050-common.dtsi, to avoid repeating
>>>> yourself. There is already a sdhci1 extension.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason why I added these tags in board dts and not in the common
>>> dtsi is because if it was added in the common board then for all the iot
>>> boards this will be applicable and in future if a different version of
>>> iot boards use S.R. 2.0 then we might have to change it again.
>>
>> Yes, we will have to take care of the split-up for SR2.0-based variants.
>> I didn't have the chance study their DTs yet but I strongly suspect that
>> there will be more differences. Then we may add some
>> k3-am65-iot2050-common-{SR1,SR2}.dtsi.
>>
>> So, I would not try to refactor when not all variables are on the table yet.
> 
> 
> I agree with Jan. lets bring it in the current common.dtsi and see the
> sr2 introduction separately.
> 

okay, I'll post a respin of this patch making this change.

Thanks,
Aswath