linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add bindings for Mediatek MT8365 SoC

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: <7ha64o9h1d.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:52:30 -0800
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Bernhard Rosenkränzer <bero@...libre.com>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
        angelogiocchino.delregno@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add bindings for Mediatek
 MT8365 SoC

Hi Krzysztof,

Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> writes:

> On 17/11/2022 22:03, Bernhard Rosenkränzer wrote:
>> Add devicetree bindings for Mediatek MT8365 pinctrl driver.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Rosenkränzer <bero@...libre.com>
>
> Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve.
>
>> +
>> +  pins-are-numbered:
>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
>> +    description: |
>> +      Specify the subnodes are using numbered pinmux to specify pins.
>
> Why would you name pins differently per board? And why this different
> naming of the same pins is a property of hardware?
>
> This looks like something to drop.

Yeah, having this as a flag kind of implies that this could be present
for some boards but not others.  But in practice, the driver requires it
to be present or just fails[1].  What's the right way to describe that?
We're just trying to add a binding that reflects the existing driver.

We also noticed that there's another documented binding with this
same flag[2] where similiarily, the driver simply requires it to be
present[2].

So is the way this flag is documented in the stm32 binding OK for the
mediatek one also?  If not, what would you suggest?

Thanks for the review,

Kevin

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common.c#n1053
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml#n37
[3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c#n1499