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 09:41:24 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, "Peng Fan (OSS)"
	<peng.fan@....nxp.com>
CC: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....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>,
	Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>, Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions

Hi Sudeep,

> 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.

It is ok for me. I agree.
But actually this driver still follows Spec by using OEM extensions.

If in future, the spec adds something saying pinmux bit field, and pinctrl-scmi.c
supports it, we could drop the imx driver.

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep