linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] pinctrl: cs42l43: Add support for the cs42l43

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: <633b305e-a311-3334-3d4e-30d5d09ebb6a@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 13 May 2023 20:00:05 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc:     broonie@...nel.org, lee@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, maz@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        vkoul@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com, sanyog.r.kale@...el.com,
        pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] pinctrl: cs42l43: Add support for the cs42l43

On 12/05/2023 17:54, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:30:37PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/05/2023 14:28, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>> +	priv->gpio_chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(cs42l43->dev);

What's also a bit confusing is that gpio_chip is the parent's node, but
pinctrl is not...

>>> +
>>> +	if (is_of_node(dev_fwnode(cs42l43->dev))) {
>>> +		device_set_node(priv->dev,
>>> +				fwnode_get_named_child_node(dev_fwnode(cs42l43->dev),
>>> +							    "pinctrl"));
>>
>> That's something unusual. It seems you want to bind to a DT node because
>> you miss compatible in DT node?
>>
> 
> Kinda, I don't really want to add multiple compatibles for the
> device. This is just a CODEC device, even in device tree it
> seems a little weird to have multiple compatibles for a single
> I2C device. On ACPI I am pretty sure it would be considered flat
> out right wrong. The fact Linux supports the device using multiple
> drivers is seemed to be a Linux implementation detail, rather than
> describing the hardware.
> 

I think if you do not have compatible, then the device node should be
rather the parent (so the main node with compatible), not the child.
Child is just a wrapper for pinctrls, but not something representing a
device.

Best regards,
Krzysztof