linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j722s-evm: Enable eMMC 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, 4 Apr 2024 09:45:15 +0200
From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
To: Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j722s-evm: Enable eMMC support

Hello Michael,

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 12:23:02PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> The J722S EVM has an on-board eMMC. Enable the SDHC interface for it.
> There is no pinmuxing required because the interface has dedicated pins.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
> ---
> v2:
>  - move status="okay" last
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j722s-evm.dts | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j722s-evm.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j722s-evm.dts
> index cee3a8661d5e..6b148da2bcdc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j722s-evm.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j722s-evm.dts
> @@ -369,6 +369,13 @@ partition@...0000 {
>  
>  };
>  
> +&sdhci0 {
> +	ti,driver-strength-ohm = <50>;

According to the latest DTS coding style guidelines this needs to be
just before status.

https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html#order-of-properties-in-device-node

Yes, we would need a checker, I know and I agree. At least now we moved
out of the tribal knowledge way of working with every maintainer having
slightly different expectation on this topic ... one step at a time :-)

> +	disable-wp;
> +	bootph-all;
> +	status = "okay";
> +};


Francesco