linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950 peripheral

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: <20221208112055.m7sqg3ysxzskqjp4@SoMainline.org>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:20:55 +0100
From:   Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <kholk11@...il.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950
 peripheral

On 2022-12-08 11:23:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/12/2022 11:12, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2022-12-04 17:19:05, Luca Weiss wrote:
> >> On Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 10:36:58 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> So the way this patch does it is good or does it need changes?
> > 
> > Except the typo(s?) pointed out in my first reply, this is good to go.
> > 
> > If we stick with generic adc-chan node names that should be documented
> > in the bindings IMO, as it is currently only captured implicitly in the
> > examples.  Krzysztof, what is your thought on this?
> 
> If I understand correctly, the outcome of other discussion [1] was to
> use labels and generic node names.

The outcome was to use labels in the driver and disregard node names as
the new fwnode API clobbers those names by including the @xx register
bit.

(I'll follow up with Jonathan whether or not to remove the current
fallback to node names, as [1] ended up discussing many different issues
and nits)

> In such case the patch was correct
> (except other comments).

As a consequence it _doesn't matter_ how nodes are named, and we _can_
use generic node names.  My question for you is whether we should, and
if we should lock that in via dt-bindings to guide everyone towards
using labels (which i did _not_ do in the recently-landed PM8950 and
PM6125, but will send followup for).

> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221112162719.0ac87998@jic23-huawei/

- Marijn