linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 1/3] dt-bindings: i2c: aspeed: support for AST2600-i2cv2

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: <3fdee5330d91b5d18a69a311e4df6de874973ced.camel@ozlabs.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 09:38:25 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
To: Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>, "conor+dt@...nel.org"
	 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, "andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com"
	 <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, "andi.shyti@...nel.org"
	 <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, "linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org"
	 <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
	 <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org"
	 <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Mo Elbadry <elbadrym@...gle.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "joel@....id.au" <joel@....id.au>, 
	"p.zabel@...gutronix.de"
	 <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, "krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, 
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org"
	 <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 1/3] dt-bindings: i2c: aspeed: support for
 AST2600-i2cv2

Hi Ryan,

> Sorry, for ambiguous.
> The global register like a mux selection for new/old register layout.
> Like following example.

That wasn't the ambiguous part - I think we are clear that there is a
multiplexer that controls what registers appear at the node's bus
address.

The question was more: it sounds like you're switching between
*fundamentally different* hardware units with the mux switch - not just
a different register interface for the same peripheral hardware. Is that
the case?

This is an important distinction in that some SoCs have the old
peripheral, some have the new, and some have the mux-switching between
both.

Behaviour of those two peripheral options differs beyond just a
"register interface", and calling it just a change in register layout is
misguiding the conversation somewhat.

If that's the case, then the separate compatible values may make more
sense.

Cheers,

Jeremy