linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: coresight: Add new compatible for static replicator

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:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:57:50 -0600
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To:     Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Cc:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: coresight: Add new compatible
 for static replicator

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 18:10, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:18:40PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Hi Leo,
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 04:28, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > CoreSight uses below bindings for replicator:
> > >
> > >   Dynamic replicator, aka. configurable replicator:
> > >     "arm,coresight-dynamic-replicator", "arm,primecell";
> > >
> > >   Static replicator, aka. non-configurable replicator:
> > >     "arm,coresight-replicator";
> > >
> > > The compatible string "arm,coresight-replicator" is not an explicit
> > > naming to express the replicator is 'static'.  To unify the naming
> > > convention, this patch introduces a new compatible string
> > > "arm,coresight-static-replicator" for the static replicator; the
> > > compatible string "arm,coresight-replicator" is kept for backward
> > > compatibility, but tag it as obsolete and suggest to use the new
> > > compatible string.
> > >
> > > As result CoreSight replicator have below bindings:
> > >
> > >   Dynamic replicator:
> > >     "arm,coresight-dynamic-replicator", "arm,primecell";
> > >
> > >   Static replicator:
> > >     "arm,coresight-static-replicator";
> > >     "arm,coresight-replicator"; (obsolete)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt | 7 +++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt
> > > index f8aff65ab921..d02d160fa8ac 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt
> > > @@ -69,7 +69,10 @@ its hardware characteristcs.
> > >
> > >         * compatible: Currently supported value is (note the absence of the
> > >           AMBA markee):
> > > -               - "arm,coresight-replicator"
> > > +               - Coresight Non-configurable Replicator:
> > > +                       "arm,coresight-static-replicator";
> > > +                       "arm,coresight-replicator"; (OBSOLETE. For backward
> > > +                               compatibility and will be removed)
> > >
> > >         * port or ports: see "Graph bindings for Coresight" below.
> > >
> > > @@ -169,7 +172,7 @@ Example:
> > >                 /* non-configurable replicators don't show up on the
> > >                  * AMBA bus.  As such no need to add "arm,primecell".
> > >                  */
> > > -               compatible = "arm,coresight-replicator";
> > > +               compatible = "arm,coresight-static-replicator";
> > >
> > >                 out-ports {
> > >                         #address-cells = <1>;
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> >
> > Since this is a binding patch it needs to be sent on its own.
>
> Thanks for reminding, Mathieu.
>
> Since this is the second time you remind me to send DT binding related
> patches separately, so I may misunderstand your meaning and want to get
> clarification to avoid making the same mistake for many times.
>
> Before I remembered in one patch set we need to organise patches with
> sending document patch (or document changing patch) ahead and then
> followed by the corresponding code change patch.  So this can give the
> reviewers more clear context;  and this also can present the merging
> dependency between document change patches and the code change patches.
>
> This is the rule I followed in this patch set and I sent to CoreSight
> and DT maintainers (and mailing lists) together.
>
> Please let me know what you think about this?  And also welcome
> Rob/Mark's suggestions.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt

>
> Thanks,
> Leo Yan