linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: ufs: Fix the compatible string definition

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]

Date:   Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:59:41 +0100
From:   Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To:     "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        SCSI <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        Pedro Sousa <pedrom.sousa@...opsys.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: ufs: Fix the compatible string definition

On 12/10/2018 23:39, Douglas Anderson wrote:

> If you look at the bindings for the UFS Host Controller it says:
> 
> - compatible: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0", may
>               also list one or more of the following:
>                  "qcom,msm8994-ufshc"
>                  "qcom,msm8996-ufshc"
>                  "qcom,ufshc"
> 
> My reading of that is that it's fine to just have either of these:
> 1. "qcom,msm8996-ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0"
> 2. "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0"
> 
> As far as I can tell neither of the above is actually a good idea.
> 
> For #1 it turns out that the driver currently only keys off the
> compatible string "qcom,ufshc" so it won't actually probe.
> 
> For #2 the driver won't probe but it's not a good idea to keep the SoC
> name out of the compatible string.
> 
> Let's update the compatible string to make it really explicit.  We'll
> include a nod to the existing driver and the old binding and say that
> we should always include the "qcom,ufshc" string in addition to the
> SoC compatible string.
> 
> While we're at it we'll also include another example SoC known to have
> UFS: sdm845.
> 
> Fixes: 47555a5c8a11 ("scsi: ufs: make the UFS variant a platform device")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> ---
> 
>  .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt       | 13 ++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> index 2df00524bd21..69a06a1b732e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt
> @@ -4,11 +4,14 @@ UFSHC nodes are defined to describe on-chip UFS host controllers.
>  Each UFS controller instance should have its own node.
>  
>  Required properties:
> -- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0", may
> -			  also list one or more of the following:
> -					  "qcom,msm8994-ufshc"
> -					  "qcom,msm8996-ufshc"
> -					  "qcom,ufshc"
> +- compatible		: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0"
> +
> +			  For Qualcomm SoCs must contain, as below, an
> +			  SoC-specific compatible along with "qcom,ufshc" and
> +			  the appropriate jedec string:
> +			    "qcom,msm8994-ufshc", "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0"
> +			    "qcom,msm8996-ufshc", "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0"
> +			    "qcom,sdm845-ufshc", "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0"
>  - interrupts        : <interrupt mapping for UFS host controller IRQ>
>  - reg               : <registers mapping>
>  

Tweaking CC list.

Martin, this one's for you, according to Rob ;-)

https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/999046/

FWIW, it has already been:

Reviewed-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>

Regards.