linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: compatible is an optional property

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: <20160923195510.GA8699@rob-hp-laptop>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:55:12 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: compatible is an optional property

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:45:26AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22-09-16, 12:24, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 09/21/2016 02:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > It was never compulsory to have a compatible string in the OPP table.
> > > Fix the documentation to mark it optional.
> > >

NAK.

> > > Also update its description a bit.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Why? I'd prefer the compatible string to be required so we know what
> > sort of node it is.

Agreed.

> Okay, the code doesn't have any checks for it then and that needs to be fixed.

Why? The kernel is not a DT validator.
 
> Just for my clarity, for platforms with special OPP bindings and so a different
> compatible string like: "operating-points-v2-XYZ", should the compatible string
> contain both "operating-points-v2" and the above one? It would be easier to
> check for "operating-points-v2" in that case from core code.

That would imply operating-points-v2-XYZ has extra properties or is 
different in some way. If an OS only understanding operating-points-v2 
will work, then yes it should have both. If not, then no.

Rob