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]

Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:38:45 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
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 20.03.2023 11:24, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 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?
Generally, the automotive PMICs seem to be carbon copies of their non-AU
relatives, except they're built to a better electrical spec (because well..
they're gonna be used in cars) or very very slightly modified, so I propose:

actual_pmic: pmic@sid {
	compatbile = "qcom,actualpmic", "qcom,pmic-its-based-on";
}

Konrad
> 
> 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>;
>>> +     };
>>> +};