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]

Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 20:34:56 +0530
From:   Shazad Hussain <quic_shazhuss@...cinc.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: rename i2c5 to i2c21



On 12/13/2022 8:24 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 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.

Wondering we might need to change qup2_uart17 to qup2_uart1 then ?

Shazad

> 
> Johan