linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] i2c: meson: add support for Meson G12A SoC i2c controller

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: <7hsgz3u4fu.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:41:25 -0800
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Jian Hu <jian.hu@...ogic.com>
Cc:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@...ogic.com>,
        Hanjie Lin <hanjie.lin@...ogic.com>,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] i2c: meson: add support for Meson G12A SoC i2c controller

Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> writes:

>> I am okay if it is reasonable below in file
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-g12a.dtsi. I2c controller node just uses
>> axg's compatible.
>> 
>> 			i2c0: i2c@...00 {
>> 				compatible = "amlogic,meson-axg-i2c";
>
> Actually, you should have
>
> 	compatible = "amlogic,meson-g12a-i2c", "amlogic,meson-axg-i2c";
>
> in the DT to have support for future SoC specific additions. And then,
> patch 1 is needed.
>
> Or do you handle this differently? I'd think this is DT standard.

It's a DT standard *if* there are actual hardware differences.  In this
case, the IP block is identical, so there are no driver changes.

We prefer to add a new compatible if and when there are actual
driver/hardware changes.

Kevin