linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for SONY Xperia X Performance/XZ/XZs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 10:16:47 -0500
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
Cc:     ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, martin.botka@...ainline.org,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org,
        marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, jamipkettunen@...ainline.org,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for SONY Xperia X
 Performance/XZ/XZs

On Thu 27 May 12:04 CDT 2021, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996-sony-xperia-tone.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8996-sony-xperia-tone.dtsi
[..]
> +&pm8994_gpios {
> +	pinctrl-names = "default";
> +	pinctrl-0 = <&pm8994_gpios_defaults>;
> +	gpio-line-names =
> +		"NC",
> +		"VOL_DOWN_N",
> +		"VOL_UP_N",
> +		"SNAPSHOT_N",
> +		"FOCUS_N",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NFC_VEN",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"EAR_EN",
> +		"NC",
> +		"PM_DIVCLK1",
> +		"PMI_CLK",
> +		"NC",
> +		"WL_SLEEP_CLK",
> +		"NC",
> +		"PMIC_SPON",
> +		"UIM_BATT_ALARM",
> +		"PMK_SLEEP_CLK";
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We don't yet know for sure which GPIOs are of our interest, but what
> +	 * we do know is that if a vendor sets the pins to a non-default state, there's
> +	 * probably a reason for it, and just to be on the safe side, we follow suit.
> +	 */
> +	pm8994_gpios_defaults: pm8994-gpios-default-state {
> +		pm8994_gpio1_n: pm8994-gpio1-nc {

Is there a reason for keeping pm8994_gpios_defaults? I presume you won't
be able to select it, because the associated pins are already busy?

> +			pins = "gpio1";
> +			function = PMIC_GPIO_FUNC_NORMAL;
> +			drive-push-pull;
> +			bias-high-impedance;
> +		};
> +
[..]
> +&pmi8994_gpios {
> +	pinctrl-names = "default";
> +	pinctrl-0 = <&pmi8994_gpios_defaults>;
> +
> +	gpio-line-names =
> +		"VIB_LDO_EN",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"NC",
> +		"USB_SWITCH_SEL",
> +		"NC";
> +
> +	pmi8994_gpios_defaults: pmi8994-gpios-default-state {
> +		pmi8994_vib_ldo_en: vib-ldo-en-gpio {

Ditto.

> +			pins = "gpio1";
> +			function = PMIC_GPIO_FUNC_NORMAL;
> +			drive-push-pull;
> +			output-low;
> +			bias-disable;
> +			power-source = <PM8994_GPIO_S4>;
> +		};

Regards,
Bjorn