linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/14] dt-bindings: mfd: pm8008: rework binding

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]

Message-ID: <ZmR6hPVZsYlyC5o5@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 17:36:36 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>,
	Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_skakitap@...cinc.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
	Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/14] dt-bindings: mfd: pm8008: rework binding

On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:43:16AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 06:29:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Rework the pm8008 binding by dropping internal details like register
> > offsets and interrupts and by adding the missing regulator and
> > temperature alarm properties.
> > 
> > Note that child nodes are still used for pinctrl and regulator
> > configuration.
> > 
> > Also note that the pinctrl state definition will be extended later and
> > could eventually also be shared with other PMICs (e.g. by breaking out
> > bits of qcom,pmic-gpio.yaml).
> 
> Obviously we want to adapt this style of bindings for the other PMICs
> too. My main concern here are PMICs which have two kinds of controlled
> pins: GPIOs and MPPs. With the existing bindings style those are
> declared as two subdevices. What would be your suggested way to support
> MPPs with the proposed kind of bindings?

As far as I understand newer PMICs do not have MPP blocks and we do not
necessarily want to convert the existing bindings.

That said, if there is ever a need to describe two separate gpio blocks
this can, for example, be done using subnodes on those PMICs.

Johan