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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20180501161125.GA14380@rob-hp-laptop>
Date:   Tue, 1 May 2018 11:11:25 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Wesley Terpstra <wesley@...ive.com>,
        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

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:45:20PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 30.04.2018 um 10:19 schrieb Thierry Reding:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 02:08:07PM -0700, Wesley Terpstra wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de> wrote:
> >>> "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.
> >>
> >> That's fine. I'll change it to pwm-0.00 in the next patch series.
> > 
> > This should match the version that you use. If you're internal
> > versioning uses single digits, or a single version number, then I think
> > there's no need to use 0.00, because that would just be confusing.
> > However I think it'd be good to make sure it is discernible as a version
> > number. Perhaps something like sifive,pwm-v0. That seems to be a fairly
> > common scheme.
> 
> Yes. My point was not to adopt another vendor's versioning scheme but to
> adopt _some_ consistent scheme and document it, e.g., in a sifive.txt
> similar to xilinx.txt:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/xilinx.txt
> 
> It should be made clear what in the compatible string the version is
> (thus my proposal of using a dash as separator), and there you may want
> to document how to map between IP/documentation and compatibles for any
> new bindings.

Yes. And using versions in compatible strings is only accepted when 
there is a well defined versioning process. FPGAs tend to be the main 
case as most SoC vendors don't have rigorous versioning processes. I 
guess it makes sense for SiFive from the little I know about them. What 
doesn't make sense or get accepted is software folks just making up v1, 
v2, v3, etc.

Rob