linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: turris-omnia: Add mcu node

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]

Message-ID: <YxNu9sXY5UhVCZ+w@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sat, 3 Sep 2022 17:12:54 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: turris-omnia: Add mcu node

> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-turris-omnia.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-turris-omnia.dts
> > > > index f4878df39753..f655e9229d68 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-turris-omnia.dts
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-385-turris-omnia.dts
> > > > @@ -184,7 +184,13 @@
> > > >  			#size-cells = <0>;
> > > >  			reg = <0>;
> > > >  
> > > > -			/* STM32F0 command interface at address 0x2a */
> > > > +			/* MCU command i2c API */
> > > > +			mcu: mcu@2a {
> > > > +				compatible = "cznic,turris-omnia-mcu";
> > > > +				reg = <0x2a>;
> > > > +				gpio-controller;
> > > > +				#gpio-cells = <3>;
> > > > +			};  
> > 
> > Please document the binding, preferably in yaml.
> > 
> > I'm also not sure what the DT people will say about the node name mcu.
> > I don't see any examples of that in the binding documentation. They
> > might request you rename it to gpio-controller, unless it does more
> > than GPIO? And if it does do more than GPIO we are then into mfd
> > territory, and the binding then becomes much more interesting. Then we
> > start the questions, are you defining a ABI now, before there is even
> > a driver for it?
> 
> Most probably mfd territory. It is at least a gpio-controller,
> reset-controller and watchdog.

O.K.

Then i suggest we wait for the actual drivers before committing any
DT. The binding will need revier, and could change.

    Andrew