linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

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:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:21:22 +0200
From:   Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic
 subnodes compatibles

On 29/09/2022 14:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 13:59, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are
>>> correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the
>>> HW in a proper way, while DTS does not?
>>>
>>> Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the
>>> hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong?
>>
>> The actual PMIC is an PM8018
> 
> And DTS is saying PMIC is PM8018, isn't it? I see clearly in DTS:
> qcom,pm8018
> qcom,pm8018-rtc
> qcom,pm8018-pwrkey
> qcom,pm8018-gpio

And this is why I pushed the removal of qcom,pm8921* fallback compatibles,
except for qcom,pm8018-pwrkey because I didn't managed to get it documented at the time.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>