linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Docs: dt: Be explicit and consistent in reference to IOMMU specifiers

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, 16 Dec 2016 14:56:25 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@....com>, treding@...dia.com
Cc:     "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: dt: Be explicit and consistent in reference to
 IOMMU specifiers

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:08:09PM +0000, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutland@....com]
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 06:16:13PM -0600, Stuart Yoder wrote:

> > > In the iommu-map binding change references to iommu-specifier to
> > > "IOMMU specifier" so we are 100% consistent everywhere with terminology
> > > and capitalization.
> > 
> > Elsewhere, we always use lower case "xxx-specifier" or "xxx specifier",
> > e.g. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt defines
> > "gpio-specifier", ePAPR defines "interrupt specifier".
> > 
> > Given we're morstly consistent on "iommu-specifier" today,could we
> > please jsut update the ARM SMMU binding to match that? If we're going to
> > fix the dash mismatch, that's a more general, cross-binding thing.
> 
> The notable place where we don't use "iommu-specifier" in in the generic
> IOMMU binding itself where we use "IOMMU specifier". 

True; I failed to notice that. You are right in that the pci-iommu
binding is the odd one out. Sorry for the misinformation above. :/

> You're suggesting using "iommu-specifier" everywhere including the
> generic binding?  Sounds fine to me.  It's a nit but would like to see
> it consistent everywhere.

I certainly agree that we should be consistent.

So FWIW, for this patch (as-is):

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>

Thanks,
Mark.