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: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 07:14:17 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, "Peng Fan (OSS)"
	<peng.fan@....nxp.com>, "souvik.chakravarty@....com"
	<Souvik.Chakravarty@....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>,
	dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/6] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMI v3.2 pincontrol
 protocol basic support

> 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.

i.MX SCMI pin protocol conf settings follows non-SCMI pin conf settings.

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

+ SPEC owner, Souvik. Any comments?

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij