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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:29:04 +0100 From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com> Cc: andersson@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...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 13.12.2022 16:17, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 03:54:05PM +0100, 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. > > It appears sc8280xp is the only qcom platform using a qup prefix (even > if some older platform use a blsp equivalent), and we're not even using > it consistently as we, for example, have both > > qup2_uart17, and > qup2_i2c5 > > (where the former should have been qup2_uart1). > > So either we fix up the current labels or just drop the qup prefixes and > use a flat naming scheme (e.g. uart17 and i2c21). Oh, I didn't notice that! I suppose sticking with i2cN as we've been doing ever since i2c-geni was introduced sounds like the best option.. Konrad > > Either way, there's no need for any Fixes tags as this isn't a bug. > > Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists