linux-kernel - Re: ARC dw-mshc binding compat string

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]

Date:	Sat, 26 Mar 2016 19:52:40 +0200
From:	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com>
To:	Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: ARC dw-mshc binding compat string

Hi Marek,

On 26.03.2016 19:30, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 03/26/2016 06:26 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> On 26.03.2016 12:14, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I noticed that arch/arc/boot/dts/axs10x_mb.dtsi uses "altr," prefix in
>>> the DT compatible string:
>>>
>>> mmc@...5000 {
>>>         compatible = "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc";
>>>         reg = < 0x15000 0x400 >;
>>>         num-slots = < 1 >;
>>>         fifo-depth = < 16 >;
>>>         card-detect-delay = < 200 >;
>>>         clocks = <&apbclk>, <&mmcclk>;
>>>         clock-names = "biu", "ciu";
>>>         interrupts = < 7 >;
>>>         bus-width = < 4 >;
>>> };
>>>
>>> I don't think this is OK, since ARC is unrelated to Altera, which is
>>> what the "altr," prefix stands for. I think the socfpga-dw-mshc shim
>>> should be extended with another compatibility string, something like
>>> "snps,arc-dw-mshc" and the axs10x_mb.dtsi should be adjusted
>>> accordingly. What do you think ?
>>>
>>
>> There is "snps,dw-mshc" described in
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc.txt and supported by
>> dw_mmc host controller driver.
> 
> Thanks, that's even better.
> 
> btw what do you think of using altr, prefix on non-altera system, that
> doesn't seem ok, right ?

according to ePAPR the prefix should represent a device (IP block here
I believe) manufacturer, so it should be okay to use "altr" prefix on
non-Altera system, if Altera provides  another hardware vendor with
some own IP block.

That said, I would rather prefer to see "snps,dw-mshc" prefix on description
of an MMC controller found on SoCFPGA series, "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc" seems
to be redundant.

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir