linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: PCI: Add binding for qps615

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: <76472034-82ed-4002-a21d-bd84a054d8dd@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:58:17 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
Cc: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <quic_krichai@...cinc.com>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
 Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
 andersson@...nel.org, quic_vbadigan@...cinc.com,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: PCI: Add binding for qps615

On 05/08/2024 18:39, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>
>>> In patch1 we are trying to add reference of i2c-adapter, you suggested
>>> to use i2c-bus for that. we got comments on the driver code not to use
>>> adapter and instead use i2c client reference. I felt i2c-bus is not
>>> ideal to represent i2c client device so used this name.
>>
>> You did not respond to comment of using i2c-bus, just silently decided
>> to implement other property.
>>
> 
> I guess you totally ignored my comment when you reviewed the previous
> version, where I asked him to represent the device on said bus.

Hm, Rob suggested i2c-bus, you as well:
<<I'd prefer you call it "i2c-adapter" or perhaps "i2c-bus", because
it's not "the switch controller".>>

and there was no response to any of these comments.

> 
>> Anyway, why i2c-bus is not suitable here? I am quite surprised...
>>
> 
> I was not aware that i2c-bus was an acceptable solution, sorry for my
> bad suggestion and guidance here.

I think you suggested i2c-bus as well, but regardless what did you agree
internally, response to Rob was expected.

Best regards,
Krzysztof