linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pincfg-node: Introduce an overridable way to set bias on pins

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230201015727.GA2298086-robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 19:57:27 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
        agross@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
        marijn.suijten@...ainline.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pincfg-node: Introduce an
 overridable way to set bias on pins

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:21:38PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:50 AM Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> > > +#define DRIVE_STRENGTH                 9
> > > +#define DRIVE_STRENGTH_UA              10
> > >
> > > drive-strength = <8>; // 8mA drive strength
> > >
> > > bias-type = <DRIVE_STRENGTH>;
> > >
> > > OK where do I put my 8 mA now?
> > >
> > If you look at the 2/2 patch, this property only reads BIAS_
> > values, which can't coexist anyway.
> 
> Well the DT bindings have to be consistent and clear on their
> own, no matter how Linux implements it.
> 
> But I'm sure you can make YAML verification such that it is
> impossible to use both schemes at the same time, and it's not
> like I don't understand what you're getting at.

We already don't enforce mutually exclusive combinations. Perhaps 
someone wants to fix that first?

> What I need as input is mainly the DT bindings people opinion
> on introducing another orthogonal way of doing something
> that is already possible to do another way, just more convenient.
> Because that is essentially what is happening here.

It's really a 3rd way we're adding because the existing properties have 
2 forms which IMO is worse than 2 disjoint ways of doing it. And since 
this new way can't represent some cases, I don't think it is an 
improvement. 

Rob