linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: qcom: pm8941: fix iadc 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <c36a8f26-b187-9870-ebfb-caaa893f3d86@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:26:11 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: qcom: pm8941: fix iadc node

On 26/09/2022 17:05, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Montag, 26. September 2022 10:54:23 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/09/2022 18:18, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> The iadc node name is supposed to be just 'adc' and the compatible is
>>> only supposed to be qcom,spmi-iadc according to the bindings.
>>>
>>> Adjust the node to match that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi index 3c15eecf2f21..33517cccee01
>>> 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-pm8941.dtsi
>>> @@ -131,8 +131,8 @@ adc-chan@48 {
>>>
>>>  			};
>>>  		
>>>  		};
>>>
>>> -		pm8941_iadc: iadc@...0 {
>>> -			compatible = "qcom,pm8941-iadc", 
> "qcom,spmi-iadc";
>>> +		pm8941_iadc: adc@...0 {
>>> +			compatible = "qcom,spmi-iadc";
>>
>> I am not sure this is correct. Usually specific compatibles are encouraged.
> 
> I'm happy to change it the other way also.
> 
> But the sibling of this compatible, qcom,spmi-vadc also only has that single 
> compatible so it'd align it with that.

Ugh, there is a mess around them. Some other ADCs have specific
compatibles, some not, so there is no consistency.

I propose to have device specific compatible with qcom,spmi-iadc
fallback, so basically document the DTS in bindings. Maybe other IADC
will need some quirks, so specific compatible helps here.


Best regards,
Krzysztof