linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] reset: eyeq5: add platform driver

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: <8fc7999c37f0dab7ab5d1166bba0192ab6e102d6.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 12:36:51 +0100
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>, Gregory
 CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>, Michael Turquette
 <mturquette@...libre.com>,  Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring
 <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
 Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>, Linus Walleij
 <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,  Rafał Miłecki
 <rafal@...ecki.pl>, Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev@...ileye.com>,
  linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, 
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Petazzoni
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik.bayouk@...ileye.com>,
  linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] reset: eyeq5: add platform driver

On Do, 2024-02-29 at 17:36 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:28:42PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > On Do, 2024-02-29 at 15:48 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > [...] And then I elaborated that entire reset framework should
> > > rather move towards fwnode.
> > 
> > For context, there have been initial patches for this, that turned out
> > not to be necessary later on:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220324141237.297207-1-clement.leger@bootlin.com/
> > 
> > At this point, there still is no real use case for non-DT reset
> > controls on the horizon.
> 
> I can argue on that if we have something like reset-gpio (and we have a such).

I've just sent out the pull request containing this, thank you for the
reminder.

> With this in place the ACPI can also provide descriptions for that.

Yes, an ACPI based device with shared GPIO resets (it is bound to
happen at some point...) would provide a reason to support ACPI GPIOs
in the reset framework.

regards
Philipp