linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] soc: qcom: socinfo: import PMIC IDs from pmic-spmi

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]

Message-ID: <YK3HWaAaM3PRWZ4l@builder.lan>
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 22:58:17 -0500
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
Cc:     Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] soc: qcom: socinfo: import PMIC IDs from pmic-spmi

On Wed 05 May 14:14 CDT 2021, Konrad Dybcio wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> > The driver in drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c has a more complete and more
> > up-to-date list of PMICs with the respective IDs. Use those names for
> > socinfo.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>
> > ---
> > I'm sending this as RFC because I'm not sure what names are correct for
> > the IDs that I've replaced (13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24).
> > For PM8941, PM8841, PM8226 and PMA8084 I'm quite sure that the IDs are
> > correct, but I don't have devices with the other PMICs. Please advise
> > what to do.
> >
> As far as I'm aware, qcom did the lazy and ugly thing (as they usually do) and
> 
> decided to reuse previously-occupied IDs on newer kernel releases, where the legacy
> 
> PMICs weren't supported anymore. That's why some IDs have multiple candidates and unless
> 
> a better suggestion than "let's check if this 2013 PMIC+ 2019 SoC combo is sane" pops up, we
> 
> will probably just have to deal with ambiguity (for example `[20] PM8015/PM8998`).
> 

I like this suggestion, even though I think it's only PM8058 we at all
care about upstream (as of now).

Luca, can you please respin the patch accordingly?

Thanks,
Bjorn