linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: rename i2c5 to i2c21

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: <Y5iSDehp72mQPc+h@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 15:54:05 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
Cc:     andersson@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        johan+linaro@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ahalaney@...hat.com, echanude@...hat.com, quic_shazhuss@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: rename i2c5 to i2c21

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 01:23:11PM -0500, Brian Masney wrote:
> According to the downstream 5.4 kernel sources for the sa8540p,
> i2c@...000 is labeled i2c bus 21, not 5. The interrupts and clocks
> also match. Let's go ahead and correct the name that's used in the
> three files where this is listed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
> Fixes: 152d1faf1e2f3 ("arm64: dts: qcom: add SC8280XP platform")
> Fixes: ccd3517faf183 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add reference device")
> Fixes: 32c231385ed43 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: add Lenovo Thinkpad X13s devicetree")

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> index 109c9d2b684d..875cc91324ce 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> @@ -827,7 +827,7 @@ qup2_uart17: serial@...000 {
>  				status = "disabled";
>  			};
>  
> -			qup2_i2c5: i2c@...000 {
> +			qup2_i2c21: i2c@...000 {

Note that the node is labelled qup2_i2c5 and not qup_i2c5.

That is, the QUP nodes are labelled using two indices, and specifically

	qup2_i2c5

would be another name for

	qup_i2c21

if we'd been using such a flat naming scheme (there are 8 engines per
QUP).

So there's nothing wrong with how these nodes are currently named, but
mixing the two scheme as you are suggesting would not be correct.

Johan