linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: mt8195: add rsel define

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: <CACRpkdbZKh8cqqiDRUik6Ooo33e+feGwYsLjcLRvBQnT3x5M3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 01:00:25 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
Cc:     "zhiyong.tao" <zhiyong.tao@...iatek.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...nel.org>,
        srv_heupstream <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>,
        hui.liu@...iatek.com, Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
        Light Hsieh <light.hsieh@...iatek.com>,
        Biao Huang <biao.huang@...iatek.com>,
        Hongzhou Yang <hongzhou.yang@...iatek.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Seiya Wang <seiya.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: mt8195: add rsel define

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 5:38 PM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 6:48 PM zhiyong.tao <zhiyong.tao@...iatek.com> wrote:

> > > I'll take that as "use SI units whenever possible and reasonable".
> >
> > ==> so It doesn't need to change the define, is it right?
> > we will keep the common define.
>
> Actually I think it would be possible and reasonable to use SI units
> in this case, since you are the vendor and have the resistor values
> to implement the support. Having different sets of values for different
> chips is nothing out of the ordinary. We already have to account for
> different number of pins and different pin functions. That is what
> compatible strings are for.

I fully agree with Chen-Yu's analysis here.

Zhiyong can you make an attempt to use SI units (Ohms) and see
what it will look like? I think it will look better for users and it will
be less risk to make mistakes.

Yours,
Linus Walleij