linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Convert Microchip's HLCDC Text based DT bindings to JSON schema

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: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 03:52:17 +0000
From: <Dharma.B@...rochip.com>
To: <sam@...nborg.org>, <robh@...nel.org>
CC: <Linux4Microchip@...rochip.com>, <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	<Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>,
	<thierry.reding@...il.com>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	<claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, <airlied@...il.com>, <lee@...nel.org>,
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>, <tzimmermann@...e.de>, <mripard@...nel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Convert Microchip's HLCDC Text based DT bindings
 to JSON schema

On 20/01/24 6:53 pm, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> [You don't often get email from sam@...nborg.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> Hi Sam & Rob,
> Hi Dharma & Rob.
> 
>>> To make the DT binding backward compatible you likely need to add a few
>>> compatible that otherwise would have been left out - but that should do
>>> the trick.
>>>
>>> The current atmel hlcdc driver that is split in three is IMO an
>>> over-engineering, and the driver could benefit merging it all in one.
>>> And the binding should not prevent this.
>>
>> I agree on all this, but a conversion is not really the time to redesign
>> things. Trust me, I've wanted to on lots of conversions. It should be
>> possible to simplify the driver side while keeping the DT as-is. Just
>> make the display driver bind to the MFD node instead. After that, then
>> one could look at flattening everything to 1 node.
> 
> Understood and thinking a bit about it fully agreed as well.
> Dharma - please see my comments only as ideas for the future, and
> ignore them in this fine rewrite you do.
> 
>          Sam
Based on your insights, I'm contemplating the decision to merge Patch 2 
[PWM binding] with Patch 3[MFD binding]. It seems redundant given that 
we already have a PWM node example in the MFD binding.

Instead of introducing a new PWM binding,
   pwm:
     $ref: /schemas/pwm/atmel,hlcdc-pwm.yaml

I will update the existing MFD binding as follows:

properties:
   compatible:
     const: atmel,hlcdc-pwm

   "#pwm-cells":
     const: 3

required:
   - compatible
   - "#pwm-cells"

-- 
With Best Regards,
Dharma B.