linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: dt-bindings: add parsing of loongson gpio offset

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:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:19:53 +0800
From:   Yinbo Zhu <zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>, wanghongliang@...ngson.cn,
        loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn, zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: dt-bindings: add parsing of loongson gpio
 offset



在 2023/8/9 下午11:39, Conor Dooley 写道:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 03:47:55PM +0800, Yinbo Zhu wrote:
>> 在 2023/8/8 下午8:05, Conor Dooley 写道:
>>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 03:40:42PM +0800, Yinbo Zhu wrote:
> 
>>>> +  loongson,gpio-ctrl-mode:
>>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>>> +    description:
>>>> +      This option indicate this GPIO control mode, where '0' represents
>>>> +      bit control mode and '1' represents byte control mode.
>>>
>>> How is one supposed to know which of these modes to use?
>>
>>
>> Byte mode is to access by byte, such as gpio3, the base address of the
>> gpio controller is offset by 3 bytes as the access address of gpio3.
>>
>> The bit mode is the normal mode that like other platform gpio and it is
>> to access by bit.
>>
>> If both modes are supported, it is recommended to prioritize using byte
>> mode that according to spec.
> 
> So, sounds like this property should instead be a boolean that notes
> whether the hardware supports the mode or not, rather than the current
> enum used to determine software policy.


okay, I got it, I will use boolean,

Thanks,
Yinbo.