linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: rtc: add bindings for i.MX53 SRTC

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:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:08:00 -0200
From:   Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
To:     Patrick Brünn <P.Bruenn@...khoff.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel-dev <linux-kernel-dev@...khoff.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        Patrick Bruenn <p.bruenn@...khoff.compaste>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "open list:REAL TIME CLOCK (RTC) SUBSYSTEM" 
        <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        Juergen Borleis <jbe@...gutronix.de>,
        Noel Vellemans <Noel.Vellemans@...ionbms.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Lothar Waßmann <LW@...o-electronics.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: rtc: add bindings for i.MX53 SRTC

Hi Patrick,

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Patrick Brünn <P.Bruenn@...khoff.com> wrote:

>>rtc@...
>>
> The rtc for which this series adds support is embedded within a function block called
> "Secure Real Time Clock". This driver doesn't utilize all of the hardware features by
> now. But maybe someone else wants to extend the functionalities, later.
> For that possibility I wanted to name the node "srtc". Should I still change this?
>
> I believe you have a much better understanding of what should be done here. I don't
> want to argue with you, just thought you might not had that information. So if I am
> wrong just tell me and I will change it without further "complaining".

>From the Devicetree Specification document:

"Generic Names Recommendation

The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the function
of the device and not its precise program-
ming model. If appropriate, the name should be one of the following choices:
...
rtc
"

So better use 'rtc' as suggested by Rob.