linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/22] dt-bindings: gpio: Add binding for ChromeOS EC GPIO controller

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: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:26:33 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
 Pin-yen Lin <treapking@...omium.org>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski
 <brgl@...ev.pl>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
 Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
 linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/22] dt-bindings: gpio: Add binding for ChromeOS EC GPIO
 controller

On 10/02/2024 08:09, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> The ChromeOS embedded controller (EC) supports setting the state of
> GPIOs when the system is unlocked, and getting the state of GPIOs in all
> cases. The GPIOs are on the EC itself, so the EC acts similar to a GPIO
> expander. Add a binding to describe these GPIOs in DT so that other
> devices described in DT can read the GPIOs on the EC.

..

> +
> +additionalProperties: false
> +
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    spi {
> +      #address-cells = <1>;
> +      #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +      cros-ec@0 {
> +        compatible = "google,cros-ec-spi";
> +        reg = <0>;
> +        interrupts = <101 0>;

This is should be proper define but then are you sure interrupt is type
NONE? Does not look right.

Best regards,
Krzysztof