linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] p54spi: convert to devicetree

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:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 07:50:28 +0100
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...nel.org>,
        "Christian Lamparter" <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
        "Kalle Valo" <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>,
        "Aaro Koskinen" <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
        "Felipe Balbi" <balbi@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
        "Russell King" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        "Johannes Berg" <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] p54spi: convert to devicetree

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, at 07:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/03/2023 22:40, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
>>>> +
>>>> +  power-gpios:
>>>
>>> If this is GPIO driving some power pin, then it should be
>>> "powerdown-gpios" (like in /bindings/gpio/gpio-consumer-common.yaml)
>> 
>> As far as I can tell, it's the opposite: the gpio turns the power on
>> in 'high' state. I could make it GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW and call it powerdown,
>> if you think that's better, but I don't think that is how it was
>> meant.
>
> Whether this is active low or high, I think does not matter. If this is
> pin responsible to control the power, then we use the name
> "powerdown-gpios". Effectively powerup GPIO is the same as powerdown,
> just reversed.

Ok, so should I make this GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW and adapt the patch to
call it powerdown in both the code and dt for consistency?

      Arnd