linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] ata: ahci-platform: Add ports-implemented dt bindings.

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:	Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:07:30 -0500
From:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, jmaggard10@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] ata: ahci-platform: Add ports-implemented dt bindings.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/03/16 15:11, Rob Herring wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla
>> <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On some SOCs PORTS_IMPL register value is never programmed by the BIOS
>>
>>
>> s/BIOS/firmware/
>
> BIOS is the word used in the AHCI SPECS so want to stick to this.

The spec being Intel's also says it is a PCI device... BIOS is a type
of firmware.

[...]

>>> +       sata0: sata@...00000 { /* Qualcomm APQ8064 */
>>
>>
>> Do you really need another example just for this?
>>
>>> +               compatible = "generic-ahci";
>>
>>
>> Where's your chip specific compatible string? You would not require a
>> DT update to fix this if you had that.
>
>
> Possibly, But we really are not doing anything specific in the ahci driver
> which is not generic, that might be the reason why we skipped this in the
> first place.
>
> I agree we could solve this issue in more than one way, The only advantage
> of this new bindings would be to other platforms benefiting from this
> workaround would not have to keep adding a new compatible string into the
> ahci-platform driver.
>
> Like Annapurna Alpine platform seems to have the same issue.
>
> Am ok to do it either way.

I'm saying do both. Adding ports-implemented is fine, but add an SoC
compatible string (in the dts, not the driver).

Rob