linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL

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: <8d32460d-894b-472a-a262-4c6a60fbcef1@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:32:22 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: david@...t.cz, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: phodina@...tonmail.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>,
        Casey Connolly <casey@...nolly.tech>,
        Joel Selvaraj <foss@...lselvaraj.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for Pixel 3 and
 Pixel 3 XL

On 10/30/25 8:24 AM, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
> 
> This adds initial device tree support for the following phones:
> 
>  - Google Pixel 3 (blueline)
>  - Google Pixel 3 XL (crosshatch)

[...]

> +#include <dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h>
> +#include <dt-bindings/dma/qcom-gpi.h>
> +#include <dt-bindings/input/linux-event-codes.h>
> +#include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
> +#include <dt-bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.h>
> +
> +#include "sdm845.dtsi"
> +#include "pm8998.dtsi"
> +#include "pmi8998.dtsi"
> +
> +/delete-node/ &mpss_region;
> +/delete-node/ &venus_mem;
> +/delete-node/ &cdsp_mem;
> +/delete-node/ &mba_region;
> +/delete-node/ &slpi_mem;
> +/delete-node/ &spss_mem;
> +/delete-node/ &rmtfs_mem;
> +
> +/ {
> +	chassis-type = "handset";
> +	qcom,board-id = <0x00021505 0>;
> +	qcom,msm-id = <QCOM_ID_SDM845 0x20001>;
> +
> +	aliases {
> +		serial0 = &uart9;
> +		serial1 = &uart6;
> +	};
> +
> +	battery: battery {
> +		compatible = "simple-battery";
> +
> +		status = "disabled";

You added support for both non-proto boards based on this platform,
there is no usecase for you to disable the battery, remove this line

[...]

> +	reserved-memory {
> +		cont_splash_mem: splash@...00000 {
> +			/* size to be updated by actual board */
> +			reg = <0x0 0x9d400000 0x0>;

Don't define it here then

Normally the bootloader allocates a bigger buffer here BTW
(although it shooould be reclaimable without issues)

> +			no-map;
> +
> +			status = "disabled";

ditto

[...]

> +	gpio-keys {
> +		compatible = "gpio-keys";
> +		label = "Volume keys";
> +		autorepeat;
> +
> +		pinctrl-names = "default";
> +		pinctrl-0 = <&volume_up_gpio>;

property-n
property-names

in this order, please

[...]

> +&tlmm {
> +	gpio-reserved-ranges = <0 4>, <81 4>;

Could you add a comment (like in x1-crd.dtsi) mentioning what these
pins correspond to? Usually it's a fingerprint scanner or things like
that

> +
> +	touchscreen_reset: ts-reset-state {
> +		pins = "gpio99";
> +		function = "gpio";
> +		drive-strength = <8>;
> +		bias-pull-up;
> +	};
> +
> +	touchscreen_pins: ts-pins-gpio-state {
> +		pins = "gpio125";
> +		function = "gpio";
> +		drive-strength = <2>;
> +		bias-disable;
> +	};
> +
> +	touchscreen_i2c_pins: qup-i2c2-gpio-state {
> +		pins = "gpio27", "gpio28";
> +		function = "gpio";
> +
> +		drive-strength = <2>;

stray \n above

> +		bias-disable;
> +	};
> +};
> +
> +&uart6 {
> +	pinctrl-0 = <&qup_uart6_4pin>;
> +
> +	status = "okay";
> +	bluetooth {

Please add a \n above, to separate the properties from subnodes

[...]

> +&mdss {
> +	/* until the panel is prepared */
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};

Is it not the same as on the little boy, except the resolution?
(don't know, just asking)

Konrad