linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions

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: Wed, 8 May 2024 10:12:57 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>, Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions

On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 11:32:01AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> ARM SCMI v3.2 Table 24 Pin Configuration Type and Enumerations:
> '192 -255 OEM specific units'.
>
> i.MX95 System Manager FW supports SCMI PINCTRL protocol, but it has zero
> functions, groups. So pinctrl-scmi.c could not be reused for i.MX95.
> Because nxp,pin-func, nxp,pin-conf properties are rejected by dt
> maintainers, so use generic property 'pinmux' which requires a new driver
> pinctrl-imx-scmi.c
>

Not a review in particular, but if we decide to merge this deviation, it
must be under the condition that it can be deleted anytime in the future
if this becomes annoyance(like other vendors using this as a way to deviate
from the specification). If we can't agree with that, then we better not
merge this at all.

--
Regards,
Sudeep