linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] arm64: dts: imx93: Add phyBOARD-Segin-i.MX93 support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f35363e3-55f4-4489-822d-049881c27e93@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 08:41:45 +0100
From: Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>
To: Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@...tec.de>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@....org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
 Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
 Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
 Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>, Primoz Fiser <primoz.fiser@...ik.com>,
 Christoph Stoidner <c.stoidner@...tec.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 upstream@...ts.phytec.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] arm64: dts: imx93: Add phyBOARD-Segin-i.MX93
 support

Am 25.01.24 um 07:05 schrieb Wadim Egorov:
>
> Am 24.01.24 um 18:28 schrieb Stefan Wahren:
>> Hello Mathieu,
>>
>> Am 24.01.24 um 14:48 schrieb Mathieu Othacehe:
>>> Hello Stefan,
>>>
>>>>> Defining line names should be fine. But I would still prefer to have
>>>>> the muxing in an overlay bound to a specific use case.
>>>> I'm fine with this. Unfortunately Mathieu dropped the line names in V5
>>>> today :-(
>>>>
>>>> AFAIR reviewers should have 2 weeks time maximum. This was just 2
>>>> days.
>>> I am sorry but it is not easy for me to deal with contradictory
>>> input. I
>>> chose to remove the gpio-line-names even though it also seemed like a
>>> nice addition to me. The idea was to not interfere with Phytec plans in
>>> the future.
>> tbh sending v5 before the discussion between Wadim and me was finished
>> made it more complicated. Please keep in mind that some reviewers do
>> this in their spare time, so a response could take some time.
>>
>> In this particular case Wadim and me agreed on a solution, so no action
>> from your side was necessary except a little bit patience.
>>
>> The reason why i suggested the gpio-line-names in the first place is
>> that users doesn't need to care about different versions of the DT files
>> (except the downstream one). Changing the line names afterwards leads to
>> confusion.
>>
>> So before we discuss on a v6, just a question: are on the X16 connector
>> just 2 pins muxable as GPIO? This is hard to believe.
>
> In theory you can use more of the Pins as GPIOs. But at this point I
> should mention that the Segin board became slightly more complicated
> since it started to support more SoMs with different SoCs. We have
> routings for various pins to help with the compatibility. So the
> naming in the schematics is not really trivial. And IMO the dt should
> follow the naming of the schematics.
Thanks for the explanation
>
> I would prefer to go with v5 without having any namings for now.
Okay
>
> Regards,
> Wadim
>