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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y4CXtn/o3aNvBNh5@hovoldconsulting.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 11:23:50 +0100 From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> To: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@...rphone.com> Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] phy: qcom-qmp-combo: Add config for SM6350 On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:14:53AM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote: > Hi Johan, > > On Fri Nov 25, 2022 at 11:01 AM CET, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 10:27:48AM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote: > > > Add the tables and config for the combo phy found on SM6350. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@...rphone.com> > > > --- > > > @Johan Hovold, here I've added dp_txa & dp_txb, I believe otherwise > > > qmp->dp_tx would be wrong. Is this different on sc8280xp or was this a > > > mistake on your side? I think this should probably be split out to > > > another patch to not mix things up too much. > > > > Yeah, that's a difference in sc8280xp which does not have dedicated TX > > registers for DP. > > Good to know. > > > > > This is probably best handled explicitly when parsing the DT by using > > dp_txa/b if they are set and otherwise fallback to txa/txb (e.g. > > instead of hiding it in the v5 table by using the same offset in two > > places). > > Are you thinking about something like this? > > if (offs->dp_txa) > qmp->dp_tx = base + offs->dp_txa > else > qmp->dp_tx = base + offs->txa; > > if (offs->dp_txb) > qmp->dp_tx2 = base + offs->dp_txb; > else > qmp->dp_tx2 = base + offs->txb; > > This wouldn't handle ".dp_txa = 0x0000" but I don't think this should be > a problem, right? Yeah, that should be fine. I'd even merge the branches: if (offs->dp_txa) { qmp->dp_tx = base + offs->dp_txa; qmp->dp_tx2 = base + offs->dp_txb; } else { qmp->dp_tx = base + offs->txa; qmp->dp_tx2 = base + offs->txb; } Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists