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:   Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:16:13 +0100
From:   Andreas Färber <>
To:     Thomas Petazzoni <>
        Jisheng Zhang <>,
        Andrew Lunn <>,
        Eric Miao <>,
        Jason Cooper <>,,,
        Haojian Zhuang <>,, Rob Herring <>,
        Gregory Clement <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        Robert Jarzmik <>,
        Daniel Mack <>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: devicetree: arm: Document Marvell


Am 20.02.2017 um 13:56 schrieb Thomas Petazzoni:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:19:58 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> + - compatible :  must contain "mrvl,iap140"
> Even though there's indeed a good number of existing "mrvl," compatible
> strings in the tree, the official vendor prefix according to
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt is "marvell".
> Probably you should use that instead for new bindings?

I'm confused now. According to Marvell IR [0] they are NASDAQ-listed as
MRVL. My understanding is that in that case the official vendor prefix
becomes mrvl. Why not here? Would be good to understand for other
pending vendors such as Actions Semi.

Any comments on the iap140 vs. pxa1908 naming? The Communication
Processors section has disappeared from, so I couldn't
verify whether IAP140 was renamed from PXA1908 or whether both coexist
and we should add a second compatible string here?



SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists