linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: input: Introduce Himax HID-over-SPI device

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: <20230922-removable-footwork-f1d4d96d38dd@spud>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2023 16:31:15 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To:     yang tylor <tylor_yang@...ax.corp-partner.google.com>
Cc:     dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        jikos@...nel.org, benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        poyuan_chang@...ax.corp-partner.google.com, hbarnor@...omium.org,
        "jingyliang@...omium.org" <jingyliang@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: input: Introduce Himax HID-over-SPI
 device

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 05:43:54PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:22 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 03:56:25PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:09 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 05:31:29PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> >
> > > > > The behavior of "himax,boot_time_fw_upgrade" seems not stable and
> > > > > should be removed. "himax,fw_in_flash", I use the kernel config for
> > > > > user to select.
> > > >
> > > > That seems like a bad idea, we want to be able to build one kernel that
> > > > works for all hardware at the same time.
> > > >
> > > I see, so I should take that back?
> > > I'll explain more about it.
> >
> > Are there particular ICs where the firmware would always be in flash and
> > others where it would never be? Or is this a choice made by the board or
> > system designer?
> >
> Most cases it's about the system designer's decision. But some ICs may be forced
> to use flash because of its architecture(multiple IC inside, need to
> load firmware to
> multiple IC's sram by master IC). But if there is no limitation on
> this part, most system
> designers will prefer flashless.

Forgive me if I am not understanding correctly, there are some ICs that
will need to load the firmware from flash and there are some where it
will be a decision made by the designer of the board. Is the flash part
of the IC or is it an external flash chip?

Cheers,
Conor.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)