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  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:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:58:54 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Divagar Mohandass <divagar.mohandass@...el.com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] dt-bindings: at24: add a missing compatible

2017-12-21 15:25 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>> 2017-12-21 15:08 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:
>>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>>>> "atmel,spd" is reported by checkpatch as undocumented in the device
>>>> tree bindings. Add it to the list of supported compatible strings.
>>>
>>>>          "atmel,24c00",
>>>>          "atmel,24c01",
>>>>          "atmel,24c02",
>>>> +        "atmel,spd",
>>>>          "atmel,24c04",
>>>>          "atmel,24c08",
>>>>          "atmel,24c16",
>>>
>>> Sounds alogical to me to make a split by this new record.
>>> Can you find better line to inject?
>
>> They are actually ordered by memory size. I want to keep it like this
>> in the driver and I prefer that the DT reflect it.
>
> So, I just disagree on the above. Rationale I described at one of the comment.
>
> At the end it's your call, but from my p.o.v. it makes life harder to
> read and catch the chips which are (un)supported.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

Yes, I prefer this version. Another reason to keep it like this is to
group chip variants together. E.g: atmel,24cs02, atmel,spd,
atmel,24mac402, atmel,24mac602 are all variants of atmel,24c02.

Thanks,
Bartosz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists