linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC)

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:   Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:56:17 +0000
From:   Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
CC:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        "Zhang Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        DEVICETREE <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        LINUX-INPUT <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        LINUX-PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>,
        LINUX-KERNEL <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LINUX-WATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC)

On 06 October 2016 19:49, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC)
> 
> Hi Steve,

[...]

> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 04:28:14PM +0000, Steve Twiss wrote:
> > I am using the compatible string to pick a different configuration .data block:
> >
> > { .compatible = "dlg,da9062-watchdog", .data = &da9062_watchdog_info },
> > { .compatible = "dlg,da9061-watchdog", .data = &da9061_watchdog_info },
> >
> > when the only real difference between the DA9061 and DA9062 watchdog driver
> > is the name. Functionally they are identical in this case.
[...]
> > This exact same thing would happen with da9063-onkey and da9062-thermal also.
> > For the ONKEY it is marginally confused by needing to support 63, but for 62 and 61
> > it is the same thing. Only the name is different.
> >
[...]
> > But, it is just my opinion to keep the "name" different.
> > This will not be my decision if accepted into the Linux kernel, but I would like to
> > at least be consistent for DA9061 and DA9062 so ... is this an issue?
> 
> 
> Yes, for me it is. The driver is still the same, and I don't see the point
> of increasing code size and making the driver less readable just to be able
> to report a slightly different driver identification string. And each time
> a similar HW is added we would go through the same effort, again for no
> good reason.
> 

My reason for doing this was to report the hardware identification, not the
driver name. But, there would certainly be a lot less to do if I was to make
DA9061 core use the DA9062 watchdog.
 
> FWIW the driver doesn't really need to be updated in the first place.
> A compatible statement listing both da9061 and da9062 would do it.

I will make the changes you requested: deprecate the existing compatibility
for da9062-watchdog and make a new compatibility string which combines both
da9061 and da9062.

Regards,
Stephen