linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: update TI TPS23861 bindings with per-port schema

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAcybuthoac8h1T8dm96eOn9NdSq_aR0_OD7UKcxqrpK-BExrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 10:50:27 -0700
From: Gregory Fuchedgi <gfuchedgi@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>, 
	Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, 
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: update TI TPS23861 bindings
 with per-port schema

On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 09:23:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/08/2025 05:00, Gregory Fuchedgi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 12:20 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>> +  shutdown-gpios:
> >> powerdown-gpios, see gpio-consumer-common.yaml
> > It is called shutdown in the datasheet, but seems like neither powerdown nor
> > shutdown truly reflects its purpose. This pin doesn't power down the controller
> > itself. It shuts down the ports while keeping the controller available for
> > configuration over i2c. Should I call it ti,ports-shutdown-gpios or maybe
> > ti,shutdown-gpios? Any other suggestions?
> Feels more like enable-gpios.
Wouldn't that be confusing, since there's no enable pin in the datasheet? Also
it doesn't enable/disable the controller itself, but its ports.
In my mind ti,ports-shutdown-gpios is the most meaningful name for it. That said
I appreciate the guidance, since I do not know what's the usual way to do this?
Happy to go with enable-gpios if that's the convention.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 10:31 AM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >>> +patternProperties:
> > >>> +  "^port@[0-3]$":
> > >> This goes to ports property.
> > > Do you mean I should add another DT node that groups all ports? such as:
> > > compatible = "ti,tps23861"; ports { port@0 {...} port@1 {...} }
> > Yes.
> Except this is not an OF graph. Don't re-use it when it is not that.
> Maybe 'poe-port@'? Is multiple ports/channels something common on PoE
> chips? I'd guess so. If so, then come up with something common.
poe-port@ sounds good to me. When you say come up with something common, does
that imply adding it to a new file, like bindings/hwmon/poe-common.yaml? Or just
using poe-port in this dt without the parent ports node?

> Whether you should have a container node like 'ports' is a separate
> question. You get exactly 1 address space for any given node. So if you
> ever might need to address multiple disjoint things, then you probably
> want a container node.
I do not want to address anything else in this case, so I'd keep it simple.
But let me know if I'm missing any important details.
Appreciate the guidance.