linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] media: i2c: add DS90UB913 driver

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:   Mon, 26 Dec 2022 21:25:34 +0200
From:   Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michael Tretter <m.tretter@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Tu <shawnx.tu@...el.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Mike Pagano <mpagano@...too.org>,
        Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] media: i2c: add DS90UB913 driver

On 26/12/2022 18:56, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Tomi,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 08:36:47AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 14/12/2022 08:29, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>
>>>> wondering if the struct device of the DS90UB913 could be passed instead
>>>> of the port, to avoid passing the port throught
>>>> ds90ub9xx_platform_data.
>>>
>>> Interesting thought. That would limit the number of remote i2c busses to
>>> one, though. Not a problem for FPD-Link, but I wonder if that's assuming
>>> too much for the future users. Then again, this is an in-kernel API so
>>> we could extend it later if needed. So I'll try this out and see if I
>>> hit any issues.
>>
>> Right, so the issue with this one would be that it would prevent a
>> single device uses. E.g. a single chip which acts as an ATR (similar to
>> i2c-mux chips), i.e. it contains both the main and the remote i2c busses.
> 
> I don't think I understand this, sorry.

What you are suggesting above means that we'd have a separate device for 
each port of the ATR. Which is fine in our current case, as the i2c 
master busses are behind separate remote devices.

But if you consider a case similar to i2c-mux, where we have a single 
chip with the slave bus and, say, 4 master busses. We would probably 
have only a single device for that.

  Tomi