linux-kernel - Re: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT binding

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:59:27 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT binding

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:04 AM Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Am 10.10.2018 um 13:19 schrieb Rob Herring:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:08 AM Masahiro Yamada
> > <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> I see a bunch of vendor (or SoC) names in
> >> Documentation/device/bindings/arm/
> >>
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic
> > Yeah, it's kind of a mixture of board/soc bindings mostly with some
> > ARM architecture, ARM, Ltd. IP, and SoC system reg bindings.
> >
> > Eventually, I'd like to not split board bindings by arch and maybe we
> > should move all the system/misc reg bindings out.
> >
> > [,,,]
> >
> >> I also see some vendor names in
> >> Documentation/device/bindings/soc/
> >>
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/dove
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/mediatek
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx
> >> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/zte
> > This I believe is mostly SoC system reg bindings though there's
> > probably a few other things.
> >
> >> Confusingly, I see bcm, mediatek, rockchip
> >> in both locations.
> >>
> >> Is there any rule to choose one than the other?
> > Top-level SoC/board bindings in arm/ and anything else elsewhere ideally.
>
> in case of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm the directory
> contains SoC / board bindings, cpu-enable and a firmware binding.
>
> Is there any action required?

If there's a better location based on class/function, then moving them
would be nice.

> Btw the Broadcom SoC / boards from this directory has been left out for
> the yaml conversion [1] was this intended?

Yes, I'm not planning to convert all bindings for everyone myself.

Rob