linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:36:34 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific
 to legacy SCPI protocol



On 11/11/16 14:19, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/16 13:34, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>> wrote:

[...]

>>>
>>> True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ?
>>
>> That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations
>> are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how
>> many releases did ARM make before 1.0.
>>
>
> None officially, so I tend to agree with you on this.
>
> But so far we have seen some commonality between Rockchip and Amlogic
> implementations, which in fact shares some commonality with early
> release of SCPI from ARM (there are based on the same SCP code base,
> which is closed source and released to partners only). ARM improved the
> specification and the code base before the official release but by then
> it was adopted(as usual we were late ;))
>
> IMO, it's might be useful to have more generic say "arm,scpi-pre-1.0"
> and platform specific "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"
>

Rob and Olof, is it convincing enough reason to have generic compatible?
Or you prefer to drop it ?

I prefer to have "arm,scpi-pre-1.0". IMO it's useful, let me know. I
need to send PR as it's getting late now.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep