linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] dt-bindings: clock: add TI CDCE6214 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1f072e2e02bb6a66d10c50177e5c69a6@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 13:11:31 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de, Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] dt-bindings: clock: add TI CDCE6214 binding

Quoting Sascha Hauer (2025-05-07 01:05:13)
> On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 10:50:49AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Sascha Hauer (2025-04-30 02:01:35)
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,cdce6214.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,cdce6214.yaml
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000000000..d4a3a3df9ceb9
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,cdce6214.yaml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > +
> > > +patternProperties:
> > > +  '^clk@[0-1]$':
> > > +    type: object
> > > +    description:
> > > +      optional child node that can be used to specify input pin parameters. The reg
> > > +      properties match the CDCE6214_CLK_* defines.
> > 
> > Presumably the EEPROM is typically used to configure all this stuff? Do
> > you actually need to program this from the kernel, or are you
> > implementing all this for development purposes?
> 
> The EEPROM could be used to configure this. I don't know if the final
> product will have the EEPROM programmed, but even if it is, should we
> make this mandatory?

No I'm not asking about making the property/node required. I'm wondering
if you're actually using these bindings. If they're not used then I
worry we're putting a bunch of configuration in here that we'll never
use.

> 
> Speaking of the EEPROM I think we should make sure that the pin
> configuration in the device tree is optional so that we do not overwrite
> settings from the EEPROM if it contains valid values.

Ok. Aren't the pinctrl settings already optional?