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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 09:30:30 +0800
From:   Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <collinsd@...eaurora.org>, <subbaram@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 8/9] spmi: pmic-arb: make interrupt support
 optional


On 10/15/2021 9:17 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-13 20:20:57)
>> On 10/14/2021 3:38 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-13 01:36:54)
>>>> On 10/13/2021 1:41 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-09-16 23:33:03)
>>>>>> From: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make the support of PMIC peripheral interrupts optional for
>>>>>> spmi-pmic-arb devices.  This is useful in situations where
>>>>>> SPMI address mapping is required without the need for IRQ
>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>>> Is there a binding update? Can the binding be converted to YAML as well?
>>>> This change doesn't add/update any dtsi properties but just checking if an
>>>> existing property is present to decide if IRQ support is required, so no
>>>> binding change is needed.
>>> The property is now optional in the binding. Please update the binding.
>> Right, thanks for pointing it out. I forgot that part.
>> I will update the binding. How about only update the interrupt properties as
>> optional in this series then I can come up with following patch to convert
>> the binding to YAML format?
> Sure. The benefit of converting it to YAML is that we can use the
> checker to quickly validate the binding vs. having to read the whole
> thing to understand that it's correct. Converting an existing binding to
> YAML shouldn't be that hard.
Thanks, will do that for sure after this series of the changes.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists