linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/13] ARM: dts: qcom: add missing rpm regulators and cells for ipq8064

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:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 16:42:30 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan McDowell <noodles@...th.li>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] ARM: dts: qcom: add missing rpm regulators and
 cells for ipq8064

On 06/07/2022 12:09, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 10:34:16AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 05/07/2022 15:39, Christian Marangi wrote:
>>> Add cells definition for rpm node and add missing regulators for the 4
>>> regulator present on ipq8064. There regulators are controlled by rpm and
>>> to correctly works gsbi4_i2c require to be NEVER disabled or rpm will
>>> reject any regulator change request.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
>>> Tested-by: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@...th.li>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi
>>> index 1b4b72723ead..c0b05d2a2d6d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi
>>> @@ -844,10 +844,46 @@ rpm: rpm@...000 {
>>>  			clocks = <&gcc RPM_MSG_RAM_H_CLK>;
>>>  			clock-names = "ram";
>>>  
>>> +			#address-cells = <1>;
>>> +			#size-cells = <0>;
>>
>> Why adding these?
>>
> 
> Fix dt warning, will split and put it in a separate commit.
> 
>>> +
>>>  			rpmcc: clock-controller {
>>>  				compatible = "qcom,rpmcc-ipq806x", "qcom,rpmcc";
>>>  				#clock-cells = <1>;
>>>  			};
>>> +
>>> +			smb208_regulators: regulators {
>>> +				compatible = "qcom,rpm-smb208-regulators";
>>> +				status = "okay";
>>
>> Was the node disabled?
>>
> 
> smb208 is the normal and advised way to handle regulators on this
> platform. Some device may want to not follow that and implement their
> own regulator bypassing rpm so we add a status and on the current device
> present upstream we set it disabled as it does use different regulators
> implementation.

You just added a new node and say we set it as disabled... so the code
is not correct, because you enabled it. So again my question is valid -
was the node already existing and was it disabled?

> 


Best regards,
Krzysztof