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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:38:41 +0100
From:   John Crispin <>
To:     Guochun Mao <>
Cc:     Boris Brezillon <>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        "" <>,
        Richard Weinberger <>,
        "" <>,
        Russell King <>,
        Marek Vasut <>,
        "" <>,
        Matthias Brugger <>,,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        Brian Norris <>,
        David Woodhouse <>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node

On 24/01/2017 11:31, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:36:40 +0800
> Guochun Mao <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 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.
> No, just update the documentation as suggested by Rob.
>> And if not, is there any other suggestion?
> Nope, and my apologies for being so insistent on something I obviously
> misunderstood.
> Regards,
> Boris


could you please add the mt7623 compat string to the documentation
aswell while at it ? mt7623/mt2701 are essentially the same and it'll
safe us time and effort and not cause merge order conflicts. otherwise i
would need to wait till the mt2701 patch is merged before i can send the
mt7623 one

Thanks !

Powered by blists - more mailing lists