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: <CACRpkdZHAFhvHBup+Kc87OmgviRkjLf0dN1EVLz0YoD3NwzSUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:19:25 +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 Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 1:31 AM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:

> > 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 :(
>
> It might cause havoc dt-schema wise, but is having a switch-gpio-names
> a silly suggestion? Seems more usable than having 16 or 32 individual
> -gpios properties on a larger device.

I think in DT the "name" if a GPIO is kind of the string before
-gpios so "foo" is the name in foo-gpios.

We already have gpio-line-names to set up names for GPIO
lines but it has never been used like this (to find a GPIO for
a certain line name) before.

> > 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.
>
> Cool, prefix-less is fine in the case - although Rob's usual requirement
> is two users for some common thing to make sure that it is actually
> suitable for being common.

It's a reasonable stance, but if we zoom out and look at the
usecase, who wants to leave all of the switches in their
house in "undefined" state after installing them?

Everyone is going to want an initial state. Lamps switched
off and heating switched on or something like this.

Yours,
Linus Walleij