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]

Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:24:22 -0600
From:   David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
        Divagar Mohandass <divagar.mohandass@...el.com>,
        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 12/21/2017 10:20 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 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.
> 

So now I am supposed to change my device tree from "microchip,24c128" to 
"atmel,24c128"?

Also, at,24c08 is listed in 
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.txt. It should 
probably be removed.