linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-pinctrl: Introduce deep sleep macros

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: <20241115154822.GA2954187-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:48:22 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
Cc: nm@...com, vigneshr@...com, kristo@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	srk@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-pinctrl: Introduce deep sleep
 macros

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 05:26:49PM +0530, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
> The behavior of pins in deep sleep mode can be configured by programming
> the corresponding bits in the respective Pad Configuration register. Add
> macros to support this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-pinctrl.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-pinctrl.h b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-pinctrl.h
> index 22b8d73cfd32..cac7cccc1112 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-pinctrl.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-pinctrl.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,12 @@
>  #define PULLTYPESEL_SHIFT	(17)
>  #define RXACTIVE_SHIFT		(18)
>  #define DEBOUNCE_SHIFT		(11)
> +#define FORCE_DS_EN_SHIFT	(15)
> +#define DS_EN_SHIFT		(24)
> +#define DS_OUT_DIS_SHIFT	(25)
> +#define DS_OUT_VAL_SHIFT	(26)
> +#define DS_PULLUD_EN_SHIFT	(27)
> +#define DS_PULLTYPE_SEL_SHIFT	(28)
>  
>  #define PULL_DISABLE		(1 << PULLUDEN_SHIFT)
>  #define PULL_ENABLE		(0 << PULLUDEN_SHIFT)
> @@ -38,6 +44,19 @@
>  #define PIN_DEBOUNCE_CONF5	(5 << DEBOUNCE_SHIFT)
>  #define PIN_DEBOUNCE_CONF6	(6 << DEBOUNCE_SHIFT)
>  
> +#define PIN_DS_FORCE_DISABLE		(0 << FORCE_DS_EN_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_FORCE_ENABLE		(1 << FORCE_DS_EN_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_IO_OVERRIDE_DISABLE	(0 << DS_IO_OVERRIDE_EN_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_IO_OVERRIDE_ENABLE	(1 << DS_IO_OVERRIDE_EN_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_OUT_ENABLE		(0 << DS_OUT_DIS_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_OUT_DISABLE		(1 << DS_OUT_DIS_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_OUT_VALUE_ZERO		(0 << DS_OUT_VAL_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_OUT_VALUE_ONE		(1 << DS_OUT_VAL_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_PULLUD_ENABLE		(0 << DS_PULLUD_EN_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_PULLUD_DISABLE		(1 << DS_PULLUD_EN_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_PULL_DOWN		(0 << DS_PULLTYPE_SEL_SHIFT)
> +#define PIN_DS_PULL_UP			(1 << DS_PULLTYPE_SEL_SHIFT)

Are you going to go add the 0 defines to all the existing cases? If you 
do, it's a lot of pointless churn. If you don't, then it is inconsistent 
when they do get used. I would drop them all.

Rob