linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 01/20] dt-bindings: i2c: eeprom: Document vendor to be used and deprecated ones

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 May 2017 15:52:36 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/20] dt-bindings: i2c: eeprom: Document vendor to be
 used and deprecated ones

Hello Rob,

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier@...hile0.org> wrote:
>> The at24 driver allows to register I2C EEPROM chips using different vendor
>> and devices, but the I2C subsystem does not take the vendor into account
>> when matching using the I2C table since it only has device entries.
>>
>> But when matching using an OF table, both the vendor and device has to be
>> taken into account, so the exact list of supported <vendor,device> tuples
>> should be documented in the Device Tree binding document.
>>
>> But there is no need to have different manufacturers if the EEPROM chips
>> from different manufacturers are really compatible, so matching using a
>> single "atmel" vendor is enough for all chip types.
>>
>> Document in the Device Tree binding that the "atmel" manufacturer should
>> be used, and also document the manufacturers that have been deprecated.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
>> Suggested-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>> - Document the manufacturers that have been deprecated (Rob Herring).
>
> I don't think that's what I said.
>
>>
>> Changes in v3: None
>> Changes in v2: None
>>
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt | 14 ++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt
>> index 5696eb508e95..121499252179 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt
>> @@ -2,22 +2,16 @@ EEPROMs (I2C)
>>
>>  Required properties:
>>
>> -  - compatible : should be "<manufacturer>,<type>", like these:
>> +  - compatible : should be "atmel,<type>", like these:
>>
>>         "atmel,24c00", "atmel,24c01", "atmel,24c02", "atmel,24c04",
>>         "atmel,24c08", "atmel,24c16", "atmel,24c32", "atmel,24c64",
>>         "atmel,24c128", "atmel,24c256", "atmel,24c512", "atmel,24c1024"
>>
>> -       "catalyst,24c32"
>> +       The following manufacturers values have been deprecated:
>> +       "at", "at24", "catalyst", "microchip", "nxp", "ramtron", "renesas", "st"
>
> Only at and at24 should be deprecated.
>

Yes, I also fixed that on v5. Could you please take a look to that
version instead?

Best regards,
Javier