linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] ARM: dts: ti: omap: espresso-common: Add common device tree for Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 series

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: <20260204000953.299628-1-bavishimithil@gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  3 Feb 2026 19:09:53 -0500
From: Mithil Bavishi <bavishimithil@...il.com>
To: andreas@...nade.info
Cc: aaro.koskinen@....fi,
	airlied@...il.com,
	andrzej.hajda@...el.com,
	bavishimithil@...il.com,
	conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	jernej.skrabec@...il.com,
	jesszhan0024@...il.com,
	jonas@...boo.se,
	khilman@...libre.com,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
	mripard@...nel.org,
	neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
	prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com,
	rfoss@...nel.org,
	robh@...nel.org,
	rogerq@...nel.org,
	simona@...ll.ch,
	thierry.reding@...il.com,
	tony@...mide.com,
	tzimmermann@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] ARM: dts: ti: omap: espresso-common: Add common device tree for Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 series

> We had the discussion. This should be done via pinctrl irq if possible instead of
> specifying WAKEUP_EN here, You had some trouble to understand how it can be done,
> and we agreed to add the wakeup functionality as a follow-up concentrating just
> on that detail and for now just remove WAKEUP_EN.

Alright, I misunderstood as keeping it and chaning it next time. I'll
remove it.

> still this strange matrix. This is no rotation matrix. Determinant is -1.
> Something is strange here, so also the idea in our earlier discussion was to
> also postpone it and maybe separately discuss it with iio.

Similarly, will remove it for v6.

Best,
Mithil