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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:57:12 +0100 From: Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com> Cc: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>, "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> Subject: Re: "compatible" and "model" properties in .dts for ARC boards On 06.11.2015 09:59, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 06 November 2015 04:45:24 Vineet Gupta wrote: >>> >>> During OpenWRT upsreaming process one interesting topic was raised. >>> See in the middle of https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-November/036959.html >>> >>> In Device Tree descriptions for our boards we don't use "model" property >>> even though it is a required one as specified by ePAPR, see >>> http://free-electrons.com/~thomas/pub/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.0.pdf, >>> page 39 "Table 3-1 Root node properties". >>> >>> Instead we put 2 items in "compatible" property. >>> >>> For example: >>> ------------------->8---------------- >>> compatible = "snps,axs101", "snps,arc-sdp"; >>> ------------------->8---------------- >>> >>> And from ePAPR standpoint it makes sense to split contents of that "compatible" >>> property in 2: >>> ------------------->8---------------- >>> compatible = "snps,arc-sdp"; >>> model = "snps,axs101"; >>> ------------------->8---------------- >> >> It seems model is just a descriptive label and we can surely add them to existing DT. >> compatible on the other hand is more fundamental used for exact comparisons etc >> and follows the vendor,device convention. >> It is pretty common for compatible to have multiple strings for exactly the same >> reason as I have them here. Both axs101 and axs103 are based on sdp thus we want >> the ability to have both pieces of information and use as needed. > > Correct. > > The model should also be a human readable name of the machine, just one > string like "Synapsys AXS101 Development Board" (or whatever that is called). This contradicts ePAPR, which says the model's recommended* format is the same as the compatible one's (<vendor>,<model>). Most PowerPC and some MIPS dts files follow that, while ARM(64) uses the free text form. To me it looks like the intended usage was model = <actual_model>; compatible = <platform>; but the actual usage in arm is model = <human readable string>; compatible = <actual_model>, <platform>; Of course for changing this in the existing dts files it might be a bit late, but it would be good to decide which of these two is the actually expected format. It also is a required property, and we have a few boards not having a model property, including the example in Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.txt. Jonas * compatible strings are also only "recommended" to be in that format. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists