linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: qcom: msm8960: expressatt: Add coreriver,tc360-touchkey

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <hku2xgecaz3bewsa5hqzqklzay2okurcrehzaxjkx6ktayinow@dtgvgowyzobj>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2025 06:01:53 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@...il.com>
Cc: 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>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: qcom: msm8960: expressatt: Add
 coreriver,tc360-touchkey

On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 07:54:55PM -0800, Rudraksha Gupta wrote:
> > > +		sda-gpios = <&tlmm 71 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
> > > +		scl-gpios = <&tlmm 72 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
> > I don't have docs at hand, but it looks like these pins belong to
> > GSBI10. Have you tried using it directly?
> 
> This is the log when I use GSBI10:
> 
> samsung-expressatt:~$ dmesg | grep tm2
> [   79.555802] input: tm2-touchkey as
> /devices/platform/soc/1a200000.gsbi/1a280000.i2c/i2c-4/4-0020/input/input3
> [  110.242881] leds tm2-touchkey: Setting an LED's brightness failed (-110)
> [  167.074920] tm2-touchkey 4-0020: failed to read i2c data: -110
> [  182.435009] tm2-touchkey 4-0020: failed to read i2c data: -110
> 
> I could be doing something wrong, so here are the changes I made on top of
> this diff

I see, GSBI 10 uses pins 72 / 73 for I2C. Then this your patch is indeed
correct.

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry