linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: added new pwm-sifive driver documentation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <60772240-3c75-7814-9237-d60916a8ceca@suse.de>
Date:   Sun, 29 Apr 2018 23:01:20 +0200
From:   Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
To:     Wesley Terpstra <wesley@...ive.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        SZ Lin <sz.lin@...a.com>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: added new pwm-sifive driver
 documentation

Am 29.04.2018 um 22:51 schrieb Wesley Terpstra:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 03:59:56PM -0700, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- compatible: should be "sifive,pwm0"
>>
>> Why not simply "sifive,pwm"? If this is supposed to be some sort of
>> version number, then it is more customary to use the name of the first
>> SoC that integrates the IP. There are some exceptions, like for example
>> when the IP is third-party and is integrated in a number of different
>> SoCs. In such cases the IP is often properly versioned. But that doesn't
>> seem to be the case here.
> 
> It is indeed a version number. The first SoC which integrated this IP
> cannot run linux. We've put a version number like this into all of our
> IP blocks. Isn't an increasing number, which clearly indicates
> increased functionality, better than a reference to a sequence of SoCs
> whose relationships are not all that clear?

"pwm0" sounds like a zero-indexed instance of some pwm block. If 0 is
the version here, I'd suggest to make it "pwm-0" for example - you might
want to take a look at the Xilinx bindings, which use a strict x.yy suffix.

Most SoCs don't have clearly versioned IP though, that's why for
community-contributed bindings the first SoC we encounter the IP in
usually gets the name.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)