linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 1/3] dt-bindings: i2c: Add CP2112 HID USB to SMBus Bridge

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: <20260127160217.GA3776731@LNDCL34533.neenah.na.plexus.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:02:17 -0600
From: Danny Kaehn <danny.kaehn@...xus.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
        Ethan Twardy <ethan.twardy@...xus.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Leo Huang <leohu@...dia.com>,
        Arun D Patil <arundp@...dia.com>, Willie Thai <wthai@...dia.com>,
        Ting-Kai Chen <tingkaic@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/3] dt-bindings: i2c: Add CP2112 HID USB to SMBus
 Bridge

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 08:47:48AM -0600, Danny Kaehn wrote:
> This is a USB HID device which includes an I2C controller and 8 GPIO pins.
> 
> The binding allows describing the chip's gpio and i2c controller in DT,
> with the i2c controller being bound to a subnode named "i2c". This is
> intended to be used in configurations where the CP2112 is permanently
> connected in hardware.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Danny Kaehn <danny.kaehn@...xus.com>
> ---

Hi Folks (Intended for Rob or Krzysztof),

Wasn't sure the best way to go about this, but trying to see the best
way to get a message in front of you regarding an ask from Andy S.

In [1], Rob H initially directed that the gpio chip share a node with
the CP2112 itself, rather than having a subnode named 'gpio'.

Initially, I did the same thing for both DT and ACPI, but Andy S.
directed that ACPI should not have the node be shared in that way.

With the last revision of this patch, Andy S. asked that I try to get a
rationalle from Rob (or other DT expert presumably) on why the gpio node
should be combined with the parent, rather than being a named subnode
[2].

Any context you can provide would be extremely helpful. Apologies about
the age of this patch series and the amount of historical context; some
is due to my long delays between revisions, but other of it is due to
attempting to get the ACPI and DT folks to talk / agree.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240213152825.GA1223720-robh@kernel.org/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aSdvv3Qss5oz_o6P@smile.fi.intel.com/

Thanks,

Danny Kaehn