linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] arm64: dts: exynos: gs101: define USI8 with I2C configuration

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, 28 Dec 2023 14:04:02 +0000
From: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
To: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, peter.griffin@...aro.org, 
 robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
 mturquette@...libre.com,  sboyd@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 andi.shyti@...nel.org,  alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,  s.nawrocki@...sung.com,
 tomasz.figa@...il.com, cw00.choi@...sung.com,  arnd@...db.de,
 semen.protsenko@...aro.org
Cc: saravanak@...gle.com, willmcvicker@...gle.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] arm64: dts: exynos: gs101: define USI8 with
 I2C configuration

Hi Tudor,

On Thu, 2023-12-28 at 12:58 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> [...]
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi
> index 0e5b1b490b0b..c6ae33016992 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi
> @@ -354,6 +354,35 @@ pinctrl_peric0: pinctrl@...40000 {
>  			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 625 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
>  		};
>  
> +		usi8: usi@...700c0 {
> +			compatible = "google,gs101-usi",
> +				     "samsung,exynos850-usi";
> +			reg = <0x109700c0 0x20>;
> +			ranges;
> +			#address-cells = <1>;
> +			#size-cells = <1>;
> +			clocks = <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7>,
> +				 <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK>;
> +			clock-names = "pclk", "ipclk";

Given the clock-names, shouldn't the clock indices be the other way around? Also see below.

> +			samsung,sysreg = <&sysreg_peric0 0x101c>;
> +			status = "disabled";
> +
> +			hsi2c_8: i2c@...70000 {
> +				compatible = "google,gs101-hsi2c",
> +					     "samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c";
> +				reg = <0x10970000 0xc0>;
> +				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 642 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
> +				#address-cells = <1>;
> +				#size-cells = <0>;
> +				pinctrl-names = "default";
> +				pinctrl-0 = <&hsi2c8_bus>;
> +				clocks = <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7>,
> +					 <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK>;
> +				clock-names = "hsi2c", "hsi2c_pclk";

Here, pclk == CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK (which is correct, I believe), whereas
above pclk == CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7

Cheers,
A.