linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] pwm: brcmstb: Support configurable open-drain mode

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: <5ub3shbkriblqnn7kupyunyoa5a7etaqle5cls4o5oiedx3ylx@tokosop2mp2m>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:09:56 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, 
	"open list:PWM SUBSYSTEM" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, justin.chen@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] pwm: brcmstb: Support configurable open-drain mode

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:05:40PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Florian,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 07:56:01PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > This patch series updates the pwm-brcmstb driver to not assume an
> > open-drain mode, but instead get that sort of configuration from Device
> > Tree using the 'open-drain' property.
> 
> Just for me to be sure to understand correctly: A kernel without your
> patch #2 behaves identical to a kernel with that patch if the open-drain
> property is present, right?

I don't think it does. Patch #2 breaks the ABI, IMO.

> 
> It's not clear to me why totem-pole is the better default and the commit
> logs don't justify the updated default. Can you improve here?
> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof