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  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:   Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:36:40 +0800
From:   Guochun Mao <>
To:     Rob Herring <>,
        Boris Brezillon <>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <>,
        Marek Vasut <>,
        Matthias Brugger <>
CC:     "" 
        Mark Rutland <>,
        "" <>,
        Richard Weinberger <>,
        "Russell King" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <>,
        Brian Norris <>,
        David Woodhouse <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node

On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 08:18 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Boris Brezillon
> > One last question and I'm done: is something like that acceptable?
> >
> >         compatible = "<vendor>,<old-soc>","<vendor>,<new-soc>";
> >
> > This can happen when someone adds support for an unsupported feature
> > on a brand new SoC, and then someone else use the same driver for an
> > older SoC embedding the same IP but still wants to add a new compatible
> > just in case these 2 IPs appear to be slightly different.
> Yes, it's old and new compatible strings in this case and it's newest
> compatible string first.
> > Here the order of compat strings is no longer following a clear rule
> > like 'most-specific compatible first' or 'newest IP/SoC version first',
> > it's completely dependent on the order these IPs were supported in the
> > OS (Linux). I'm perfectly fine with that BTW, just want to make sure
> > this is authorized.
> I guess we should say "newest compatible for IP first" instead. There
> are some exceptions where we add fallbacks later on, but that falls
> under the most-specific part.
> It's order that the bindings are defined, not Linux support really,
> but in practice those are the same.
> Rob

Thanks for all your effort for code reviewing.
Our mt2701-nor's hardware is designed base on mt8713-nor,
even so, there would be some slight difference.
If I don't misunderstand your viewpoint in this discussion,
there's no need to drop mt2701-nor compatible.
And if not, is there any other suggestion?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists