linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] dt-bindings: arm: atmel: add new sam9x60 reset controller binding

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:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 09:00:45 +0000
From:   <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>
To:     <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <sre@...nel.org>,
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] dt-bindings: arm: atmel: add new sam9x60 reset
 controller binding

Hi Rob,

On 22/01/2019 at 02:07, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:57:38AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Update the Reset Controller's binding to add new SoC compatibility string.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt
>> index 36952cc39993..badce6ef3ab3 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/atmel-sysregs.txt
>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ Its subnodes can be:
>>   RSTC Reset Controller required properties:
>>   - compatible: Should be "atmel,<chip>-rstc".
>>     <chip> can be "at91sam9260", "at91sam9g45", "sama5d3" or "samx7"
>> +  it also can be "microchip,sam9x60-rstc"
> 
> How is this related to at91sam9260-rstc?

at91sam9260 and sam9x60 are completely different products (they share 
the same core though...). I know the naming could be misleading but it 
is like it is...

> The 'x' is a wildcard? We generally avoid wildcards.

Here, the 'x' is definitively not a wildcard nor a kind of "family" 
name, it's included in the (upcoming) single product's name.

I hope it clarifies.

Best regards,
   Nicolas

>>   - reg: Should contain registers location and length
>>   - clocks: phandle to input clock.
>>   
>> -- 
>> 2.17.1
>>
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre