linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: at24: consistently document the compatible property

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]

Message-ID: <0c2455ae-2f68-5342-14c6-14706d6f0e66@axentia.se>
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:20:54 +0100
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        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>
Cc:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: at24: consistently document the
 compatible property

On 2017-12-21 14:48, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> Current description of the compatible property for at24 is quite vague.
> 
> Specify an exact list of accepted compatibles and document the - now
> deprecated - strings which were previously used in device tree files.

Why is it suddenly deprecated to correctly specify what hardware you
have, e.g. "nxp,24c32". In this case the manufacturer is nxp, damnit.
Sure, it happens to be compatible with "atmel,24c32", but that is
supposed to be written with a fallback as

	"nxp,24c32", "atmel,24c32"

if I understand correctly. So, why is that deprecated in this case?

What if (a few years down the line) it is discovered that some weird
quirk is needed that is only appropriate for nxp chips?

nxp is of course just an example, pick any manufacturer of eeproms
(supposedly) compatible with the atmel interface.

Cheers,
Peter