linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire

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]

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:47:10 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, lars@...afoo.de,
 Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, jic23@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eraretuya@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire

On 23/03/2024 18:44, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 3:27 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 23/03/2024 13:04, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 3:17 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:37:13AM +0000, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
>>>>> Provide the optional spi-3wire in the example.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't match the diff as you don't touch the example. But really,
>>>> this should say why you need spi-3wire.
>>>
>>> I understand. The change does not add anything to the example. which
>>> is definitely wrong.
>>> Anyway I'm unsure about this change in particular. I know the spi-3wire
>>> binding exists and can be implemented. Not all spi devices offer it. Not all
>>> drivers implement it. My patch set tries to implement spi-3wire for the
>>> particular accelerometer.
>>> Do I need to add something here to dt-bindings documentation of the
>>> adxl345? Or, as an optional spi feature, is it covered anyway by
>>> documentation of optional spi bindings? So, should I refrase this particular
>>> patch or may I drop it entirely? Could you please clarify.
>>
>> Whether you need to change bindings or not, dtbs_check will tell you.
>> Just run dtbs_check on your DTS.
>>
> 
> I'm not changing upstream DTS. At most, the documentation should
> mention something.

Nothing should stop you testing from downstream DTS...

Best regards,
Krzysztof