linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol

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:   Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:34:20 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific
 to legacy SCPI protocol

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>> wrote:

[...]

>>> E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in
>>> couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible
>>> (in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?)
>>> make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform
>>> specific compatible for deviations only.
>>>
>>> Is that not acceptable ?
>>
>>
>> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less
>> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value.
>>
>
> There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the
> standard command set will be shared.
>
>> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't
>> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead
>> we should have those as extensions on the side.
>>
>
> Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the
> deviations but generic one to handle the shared set.
>
>> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same
>> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc.
>>
>
> True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ?

That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations
are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how
many releases did ARM make before 1.0.

Rob