linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dt-bindings: Use generic property for hardware enable pins

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, 3 Mar 2017 00:21:19 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Milo Kim <milo.kim@...com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dt-bindings: Use generic property for
 hardware enable pins

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:50:40PM +0900, Milo Kim wrote:
> With index usages, device specific properties can be replaced with generic
> one. Vpos is index 0 and Vneg is index 1.
> DT examples are added as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Milo Kim <milo.kim@...com>
> ---
>  .../bindings/regulator/lm363x-regulator.txt        | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/lm363x-regulator.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/lm363x-regulator.txt
> index 8f14df9d1205..cc5a6151d85f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/lm363x-regulator.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/lm363x-regulator.txt
> @@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ Required property:
>  
>  Optional properties:
>    LM3632 has external enable pins for two LDOs.
> -  - ti,lcm-en1-gpio: A GPIO specifier for Vpos control pin.
> -  - ti,lcm-en2-gpio: A GPIO specifier for Vneg control pin.
> +  - enable-gpios: Two GPIO specifiers for Vpos and Vneg control pins.
> +                  The first entry is Vpos, the second is Vneg enable pin.

You're breaking compatibility with existing DTBs. You need to explain 
that and why it is okay in the commit message. In this case, I don't 
think it is okay as this chip could be used across vendors' platforms.

Rob