linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Extend mmio-mux driver to configure mux with new DT property

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: <7024867d-91ac-40eb-b41f-eed811032f95@ti.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 15:07:14 +0530
From: "Vankar, Chintan" <c-vankar@...com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin
	<peda@...ntia.se>,
        <s-vadapalli@...com>, <danishanwar@...com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vignesh
 Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Thomas Gleixner
	<tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Extend mmio-mux driver to configure mux with
 new DT property

Hello Greg,

On 5/31/2025 11:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 10:35:24PM +0530, Vankar, Chintan wrote:
>> Hello Greg,
>>
>> I have tried to implement Timesync Router node to the suitable
>> Subsystems (Interrupt controller and Mux-controller). Thomas
>> has provided a feedback with a reason why Timesync Router is not
>> suitable for irqchip. But I didn't get a proper feedback for mux-
>> controller subsystem.
> 
> What do you mean "proper feedback"?
> 

By proper feedback, I meant, from the comments I was not able to figure
out whether Timesync Router will be acceptable in the "mux-controller"
subsystem or not.

>> Can you please help me deciding in which subsystem I should implement
>> it, if not mux-controller can it go in drivers/misc ?
> 
> Why not mux?  What's preventing that from happening?  Why would misc be
> better?
> 

Sure, if mux-controller subsystem is acceptable, I will implement the
Timesync Router with that and post a series.

I thought of misc, when mux-controller subsystem is not acceptable and I
could not find any other subsystem which is suitable for Timesync
Router.

Regards,
Chintan.

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h