linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/11] arm64: tegra: Enable XUSB host and device on Jetson AGX Orin

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: <275e6fe5-80a5-e7be-ddbc-ee298dbcb243@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:34:39 +0100
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Wayne Chang <waynec@...dia.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        treding@...dia.com, thierry.reding@...il.com,
        heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, ajayg@...dia.com, kishon@...com,
        vkoul@...nel.org, p.zabel@...gutronix.de, balbi@...nel.org,
        mathias.nyman@...el.com, jckuo@...dia.com
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, singhanc@...dia.com,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] arm64: tegra: Enable XUSB host and device on Jetson
 AGX Orin


On 28/10/2022 12:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/10/2022 05:33, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> +			ucsi_ccg: ucsi_ccg@8 {
>>>
>>> No underscores in node names.
>>>
>>>> +				compatible = "cypress,cypd4226";
>>>> +				cypress,firmware-build = "gn";
>>>> +				interrupt-parent = <&gpio>;
>>>> +				interrupts = <TEGRA234_MAIN_GPIO(Y, 4) IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>> +				reg = <0x08>;
>>>> +				status = "okay";
>>>
>>> The pattern of redefining full path in Tegra is confusing - I have no
>>> clue which of these status=okay are correct which are redundant.
>>>
>>> Do you?
>>
>> I understand you may not like this approach, however, this comment is
>> not really relevant to just this patch, but a general comment. But yes
>> we will ensure that this is correct.
>>
> 
> Just to clarify - this status looks redundant, but I have no way to tell
> for sure...

I see. This is the only place where this device appears. I always forget 
if we are meant to explicitly set status to okay or just omit. 
Personally, I always prefer to be explicit.

Jon

-- 
nvpublic