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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAE-0n50cX5ky3By976RTecKkpeMoAjoBA4tYuWSZ150JfS9wiQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 21:20:31 -0400 From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_c_skakit@...cinc.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_collinsd@...cinc.com, quic_subbaram@...cinc.com, quic_jprakash@...cinc.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 6/9] mfd: pm8008: Use i2c_new_dummy_device() API Quoting Lee Jones (2022-09-28 03:20:30) > Wouldn't it make more sense to simply separate the instantiation of > the 2 I2C devices? Similar to what you suggested [0] in v9. That way > they can handle their own resources and we can avoid all of the I2C > dummy / shared Regmap passing faff. > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAE-0n53G-atsuwqcgNvi3nvWyiO3P=pSj5zDUMYj0ELVYJE54Q@mail.gmail.com/ > You can continue reading the thread[1]. My understanding is it's one chip that responds on two i2c addresses, thus we don't describe that as two i2c device nodes in DT. Instead we describe one node and use the dummy API to make the second i2c device. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yk3NkNK3e+fgj4eG@sirena.org.uk/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists