linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMI v3.2 pincontrol protocol basic 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:36:52 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>, 
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Oleksii Moisieiev <oleksii_moisieiev@...m.com>, 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>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMI v3.2 pincontrol
 protocol basic support

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 1:37 PM Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com> wrote:

> And for i.MX95 OEM extenstion, do you have any suggestions?
> I have two points:
> 1. use vendor compatible. This would also benefit when supporting vendor
> protocol.
> 2. Introduce a property saying supporting-generic-pinconf
>
> How do you think?

While I don't know how OEM extensions to SCMI were designed,
the pin control subsystem has the philosophy that extensions are
for minor fringe stuff, such as a pin config option that no other
silicon is using and thus have no use for anyone else. Well that
is actually all the custom extensions we have.
(This notion is even carried over to SCMI pinctrl.)

The i.MX95 OEM extension is really odd to me, it looks like a
reimplementation of the core aspects of SCMI pin control, and
looks much more like the old i.MX drivers than like the SCMI driver.

But I sure cannot speak of what is allowed in SCMI OEM
extensions or not.

Yours,
Linus Walleij