linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] iio: potentiometer: mcp4531: Add device tree binding

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: <dfdbc7dd-8457-c0ef-9f0e-e2c1d96e5b11@axentia.se>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:06:16 +0200
From:	Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:	Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@...g-vd.ch>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>
CC:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Slawomir Stepien <sst@...zta.fm>,
	Joachim Eastwood <manabian@...il.com>,
	Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>,
	Cristina Moraru <cristina.moraru09@...il.com>,
	<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iio: potentiometer: mcp4531: Add device tree binding

On 2016-06-22 08:22, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Le 21. 06. 16 à 09:51, Peter Rosin a écrit :
>> That is, if you need this patch at all, see my reply to 2/3...
>>
> 
> This seems necessary in order to have the vendor ID in the compatible string.

Hmm, I don't think so. The way I read the response from Rob was that
*my* device tree snippet should not assume that the i2c subsystem
ignores the vendor. So, I think that even w/o this patch a DT entry
like

		mcp4651-104@28 {
			compatible = "microchip,mcp4651-104";
			reg = <0x28>;
		};

will work, precisely since i2c ignores the microchip, part (and thus
allows you to omit/misspell it). I.e. I think that Rob is concerned
with how the DT is documented/defined, and not so much about how it
is then implemented in Linux.

I haven't actually tested that though, so I may be completely wrong
in all of the above statements...

Cheers,
Peter