linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] i2c: Introduce i2c bus 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]

Message-ID: <20250320173150.2c823635@booty>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:31:50 +0100
From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Petazzoni
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] i2c: Introduce i2c bus extensions

Hi Wolfram,

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:49:53 +0100
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com> wrote:

> Hi Herve,
> 
> > The related big picture has been already presented in
> >   - the 'Add support for GE SUNH hot-pluggable connector' series [0]
> >   - the 'Runtime hotplug on non-discoverable busses with device tree
> >     overlays' talk at Linux Plumbers Conference 2024 [1].  
> 
> Any outcome of the Plumbers meetup? Was this "double-link" solution
> agreed on or so?

The i2c-parent was proposed by Rob [0]. The need for the double link
is what you, Hervé and I had agreed during our discussion after LPC,
based on having realized that the forward link is insufficient for some
cases (see "Second case" in the cover letter).

> I mean the code is the easy part here, but I would like
> to have an agreed approach for handling all kinds of non-probable
> busses. I really don't want an island solution for I2C. So, the key
> question here is what do DT maintainers think?
> 
> You sent code without bindings, but I'd think the other way around would
> be better for the discussion.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240510163625.GA336987-robh@kernel.org/

Luca

-- 
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com