linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8540p-ride: add qup1_i2c15 and qup2

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: <Y5nbYG4sJm97V2FS@x1>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 09:19:12 -0500
From:   Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        quic_shazhuss@...cinc.com, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8540p-ride: add qup1_i2c15 and
 qup2_i2c18 nodes

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:52:17PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/12/2022 13:30, Brian Masney wrote:
> > I triple checked that I have the QUP pins defined correctly for the 5
> > buses. I checked them against what's in the downstream kernel and I also
> > checked them against what's in upstream's
> > drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sc8280xp.c. This is the pin mapping that I
> 
> What's the base of this kernel? Are you sure you have d21f4b7ffc22?

I'm based on top of linux-next-20221208 with no other changes. I have
that commit.

   commit d21f4b7ffc22c009da925046b69b15af08de9d75
   Author: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
   Date:   Fri Oct 14 10:33:18 2022 -0700

      pinctrl: qcom: Avoid glitching lines when we first mux to output


On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:53:38PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > This is the style where i2cdetect seems to be happy for all 5 buses and
> > is fast:
> > 
> >     i2c0_default: i2c0-default-state {
> >         mux-pins {
> >             pins = "gpio135", "gpio136";
> >             function = "qup0";
> >         };
> > 
> >         config-pins {
> >             pins = "gpio135", "gpio136";
> >             drive-strength = <2>;
> >             bias-pull-up;
> >         };
> >     };
> Unless you made a typo somewhere, I genuinely have no explanation for this..

I have my unpublished v2 patch set committed to my tree and a clean tree
according to git. I started with the state that I have quoted above. As I
did the various tests I described in my last email, I would do a
'git diff' just to be sure that I didn't have any typos.

I'll wait to hear from Shazad about whether or not the output that I got
from i2cdetect is supposed to be the same for those 5 buses.

Brian