linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: mvebu: Fix missing binding documentation for Armada 38x

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: <CAL_JsqKinUvcJ+OOoD70zD6CH393cgZWC+4gRO=8XORyE6fVKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:33:06 -0500
From:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Cc:	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: mvebu: Fix missing binding documentation for
 Armada 38x

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 06:40:43PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> For the Armada 380 and Armada 385 SoCs, the common bindings for those
>> 2 SoCs, was forgotten. This patch add the documentation for the
>> marvell,aramda38x property.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
>> --
>> Hi,
>>
>> This fix should be merged in 3.16. For 3.15 I am not sure as it is not
>> a regression.
>>
>> Changelog:
>> v1->v2
>>
>> - Reformulate to make clear that we will need marvell,armada38x _and_ a
>> SoC specific string. For consistency I duplicated what we have done in
>> armada-370-xp.txt
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gregory
>>
>>
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt
>> index 11f2330a6554..fa08760046df 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/armada-38x.txt
>> @@ -6,5 +6,18 @@ following property:
>>
>>  Required root node property:
>>
>> - - compatible: must contain either "marvell,armada380" or
>> -   "marvell,armada385" depending on the variant of the SoC being used.
>> +compatible: must contain "marvell,armada38x"
>
> I agree with Sergei on this one.  We generally avoid wildcards in
> compatible strings.  Is there a use case where specifying one of the
> below wouldn't be sufficient?

Isn't this a case of just documenting what is already in use?

I agree wildcards alone are not good, but along with a specific
compatible is okay. But also there should be some need to have the
common property.

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/