linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: exynos: gs101: add stable i2c aliases for gs101-oriole

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]

Message-ID: <38ba0c8c-8d82-4bff-bf80-ce30ba04c5ef@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:20:50 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
 peter.griffin@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
 tudor.ambarus@...aro.org, willmcvicker@...gle.com,
 semen.protsenko@...aro.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: exynos: gs101: add stable i2c aliases for
 gs101-oriole

On 12/02/2024 13:38, André Draszik wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 13:07 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/02/2024 12:52, André Draszik wrote:
>>> As I said above, we won't care if downstream changes again at that stage, so
>>> no, I wouldn't plan on changing again.
>>
>> Then I am lost. What stage are you thinking? What differs between now
>> and let's say 1 month for the GS101 which was released more than three
>> years ago?
> 
> The idea was to make the initial transition to using upstream easier,
> hence we added the same aliases as downstream (at the time).
> Given the transition is not happening right now, we might as well hold
> off with the aliases and add them later, with whatever downstream will
> be using at that time.

Hm ok, I just did not understand what are the criteria of choosing point
in time when you take the aliases from dowstream.

> 
> If in the future somebody downstream decides 'I want this' (changed again),
> why should upstream care at that stage?
> 
> Again, this patch was just trying to make initial transition easier, do you
> have a better recommendation?
> 
>> BTW, the aliases I see in downstream DTS (gs101-usi.dtsi) - since
>> beginning up to Android 14 are:
>>
>>                 hsi2c8 = &hsi2c_8;
>>                 hsi2c9 = &hsi2c_9;
>>                 hsi2c10 = &hsi2c_10;
>>                 hsi2c11 = &hsi2c_11;
>>                 hsi2c12 = &hsi2c_12;
>>
>> They were set like this in 2020 and never changed afterwards.
> 
> Those were incorrect and didn't actually work as intended, here's a
> better place to look:
> 
> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/google-modules/raviole-device/+log/refs/heads/android-gs-raviole-mainline
> and
> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/google-modules/raviole-device/+/9864593c894da90cd8b631ab57f15c25f4e11465%5E%21/

Thanks, so it's like Qualcomm - DTS separate from the kernel, although
here a bit confusing because partially overlapping.


Best regards,
Krzysztof