linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: dt: bindings: sunxi-ir: Add A64 compatible

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:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:19:17 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: dt: bindings: sunxi-ir: Add A64 compatible

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 05:57:57PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 5:50 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a bit late to the party, sorry for that.
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 09:56:11AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 1:30 AM Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A64 IR is compatible with A13, so add A64 compatible with A13 as a
> > > > fallback.
> > >
> > > We ask people to add the SoC-specific compatible as a contigency,
> > > in case things turn out to be not so "compatible".
> > >
> > > To be consistent with all the other SoCs and other peripherals,
> > > unless you already spotted a "compatible" difference in the
> > > hardware, i.e. the hardware isn't completely the same, this
> > > patch isn't needed. On the other hand, if you did, please mention
> > > the differences in the commit log.
> >
> > Even if we don't spot things, since we have the stable DT now, if we
> > ever had that compatible in the DT from day 1, it's much easier to
> > deal with.
> >
> > I'd really like to have that pattern for all the IPs even if we didn't
> > spot any issue, since we can't really say that the datasheet are
> > complete, and one can always make a mistake and overlook something.
> >
> > I'm fine with this version, and can apply it as is if we all agree.
> 
> I'm OK with having the fallback compatible. I'm just pointing out
> that there are and will be a whole bunch of them, and we don't need
> to document all of them unless we are actually doing something to
> support them.

Yes, you do. Otherwise, how will we validate what is and isn't a valid 
set of compatible strings? It's not required yet, but bindings are 
moving to json-schema.

Rob