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, 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