linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/14] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8775p: add support for the on-board PMICs

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: <CAMRc=MdSRY8w0pWuhprB1ALPFpcCdYOnyQZ63BSzJPa3u1a-jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:24:35 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8775p: add support for the
 on-board PMICs

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:22 PM Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 14.03.2023 19:30, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> >
> > Add a new .dtsi file for sa8775p PMICs and add the four PMICs interfaced
> > to the SoC via SPMI.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p-pmics.dtsi | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p-pmics.dtsi
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p-pmics.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p-pmics.dtsi
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..77e2515a7ab9
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p-pmics.dtsi
> > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2023, Linaro Limited
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <dt-bindings/input/input.h>
> > +#include <dt-bindings/spmi/spmi.h>
> > +
> > +&spmi_bus {
> > +     pmk8775_0: pmic@0 {
> pmk8775..
>
> > +             compatible = "qcom,pmm8654au", "qcom,spmi-pmic";
> ..or pmm8654au?
>

Honestly, I got inspired by this bit from sc8280xp-pmics.dtsi:

 54 &spmi_bus {
 55         pmk8280: pmic@0 {
 56                 compatible = "qcom,pmk8350", "qcom,spmi-pmic";
 57                 reg = <0x0 SPMI_USID>;
 58                 #address-cells = <1>;
 59                 #size-cells = <0>;

Where the label seems to follow the SoC's numbering. Do you think it
would be better to consistently use the pmic's name?

Bartosz

> Konrad
> > +             reg = <0x0 SPMI_USID>;
> > +             #address-cells = <1>;
> > +             #size-cells = <0>;
> > +     };
> > +
> > +     pmk8775_1: pmic@2 {
> > +             compatible = "qcom,pmm8654au", "qcom,spmi-pmic";
> > +             reg = <0x2 SPMI_USID>;
> > +             #address-cells = <1>;
> > +             #size-cells = <0>;
> > +     };
> > +
> > +     pmk8775_2: pmic@4 {
> > +             compatible = "qcom,pmm8654au", "qcom,spmi-pmic";
> > +             reg = <0x4 SPMI_USID>;
> > +             #address-cells = <1>;
> > +             #size-cells = <0>;
> > +     };
> > +
> > +     pmk8775_3: pmic@6 {
> > +             compatible = "qcom,pmm8654au", "qcom,spmi-pmic";
> > +             reg = <0x6 SPMI_USID>;
> > +             #address-cells = <1>;
> > +             #size-cells = <0>;
> > +     };
> > +};