linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: switch: adg1712: add adg1712 support

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: <CACRpkdayt+upQxxT-GdQOENWjdF2zz3DLEjcvD7sdg9-oaLwoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 22:22:02 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: switch: adg1712: add adg1712 support

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 09:13:22AM +0000, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:

> > +  switch-gpios:
> > +    description: |
> > +      Array of GPIOs connected to the IN1-IN4 control pins.
> > +      Index 0 corresponds to IN1 (controls SW1),
> > +      Index 1 corresponds to IN2 (controls SW2),
> > +      Index 2 corresponds to IN3 (controls SW3),
> > +      Index 3 corresponds to IN4 (controls SW4).
>
> Did I miss a reply about my comment on this switch-gpios? I was asking
> if a binding like this, which doesn't permit any of these not being
> provided is a good idea.
>
> > +    minItems: 4
> > +    maxItems: 4

Maybe we should make them named GPIOs after all, as the switch
has exactly 4 possible GPIOs. It was my request to have an
array I think, and now I feel a bit stupid about that :(

> > +  switch-states:
> > +    description: |
> > +      Initial states for the four switches (SW1-SW4).
>
> Missing an adi prefix? Also, probably should say initial if it is
> initial states.

It should probably be initial-switch-states.

I vote for a generic binding as it is a new "subsystem" in DT,
and this can be exepected for any new switch.

Yours,
Linus Walleij