linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] watchdog: bindings: Provide ST bindings for ST's LPC Watchdog device

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: <20141218081334.GO13885@x1>
Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:13:34 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	a.zummo@...ertech.it, kernel@...inux.com,
	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	wim@...ana.be, linux@...ck-us.net, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] watchdog: bindings: Provide ST bindings for ST's LPC
 Watchdog device

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Wednesday 17 December 2014 16:45:24 Lee Jones wrote:
> > +- compatible   : Must be one of: "st,stih407-lpc" "st,stih416-lpc"
> > +                                 "st,stih415-lpc" "st,stid127-lpc"
> > +- reg          : LPC registers base address + size
> > +- interrupts    : LPC interrupt line number and associated flags
> > +- clocks       : Clock used by LPC device (See: ../clock/clock-bindings.txt)
> > +- st,lpc-mode  : The LPC can run either one of two modes ST_LPC_MODE_RTC [0] or
> > +                 ST_LPC_MODE_WDT [1].  One (and only one) mode must be
> > +                 selected.
> > 
> 
> I'm glad you got it to work with two drivers for the same device.
> 
> With this binding, I'm still a bit unhappy about the st,lpc-mode property,
> in particular since you rely on a shared include file for something that
> can only be set in one way or another and always has to be present.
> 
> Why not just use a boolean property that enforces one mode when present
> and another mode when absent?

There is nothing stopping me from doing that, and it was a
consideration.  I concluded that this method would be more explicit
however.  Both when describing our choices in DT and at a functional
level within each of the drivers.

Let me know if you fundamentally disagree and I can fix-up.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/