linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] dt-bindings: i2c: xiic: make clocks optional

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: <aXog-KBw7Bp-VEC4@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 16:45:12 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
	Abdurrahman Hussain <abdurrahman@...thop.ai>,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, info@...ean-labs.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] dt-bindings: i2c: xiic: make clocks optional

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 03:34:02PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 12:21:41PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > On 1/28/26 11:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 09:03:55PM +0000, Abdurrahman Hussain wrote:
> > > > The xiic driver is designed to operate without explicit clock configuration
> > > 
> > > And if you change this in the driver, then you change bindings?
> > > 
> > > You miss here explanation based on hardware - how does the hardware work
> > > if nothing ticks it clocks?
> > 
> > Hardware obviously have clock input which needs to be connected. Without it
> > it won't work.
> 
> Should ACPI potential limitations be making the DT description less
> accurate?
> 
> Would it not be better that the driver has an DT binding and an ACPI
> binding? Where there are common properties, common functions can be
> used to retrieve them. However, if ACPI lacks usable clocks, use the
> of_ method to get the clock from DT, and skip it for ACPI.

Why should we use of_ methods? If this is required we can check the type of
fwnode and act accordingly, but I think this should go deeper into some
treewide available helpers, because now some drivers repeat the mantra.

But how do the driver get the clock frequency (if needed for some register
settings and/or calculations)? DT seems to have well established property
'clock-frequency' for that. Can we consider it as "ACPI binding" as well?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko