linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] gpiolib: of: add a quirk for reset line for Marvell NFC controller

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: <Y0cMibfIomw3S5dc@maple.lan>
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 19:50:49 +0100
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] gpiolib: of: add a quirk for reset line for Marvell
 NFC controller

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:45:02AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:29:02AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 03:19:32PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > The controller is using non-standard "reset-n-io" name for its reset
> > > gpio property, whereas gpiod API expects "<name>-gpios". Add a quirk
> > > so that gpiod API will still work on unmodified DTSes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> >
> > How/when has/will the DT bindings documentation for this hardware be
> > updated to describe the new bindings?
> >
> > Delivering the quirks ahead of driver updates is great for avoiding
> > merge conflicts but it also conceals the rename from reviewers so
> > risks neglecting to update the bindings.
>
> I was planning on sending binding updates once driver patches land.

I'd have a (weak) preference for them being shared in the same patchset.
Maintainers can either ack or the changes can land seperately but
having them in the same patchset helps avoid having to quibble or check!


Daniel.