linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] dt-bindings: watchdog: add Allwinner H6 r

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: <20190523125716.g4euwplfsvw4vqzl@flea>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 14:57:16 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
To:     Clément Péron <peron.clem@...il.com>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] dt-bindings: watchdog: add Allwinner H6 r_watchdog

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:15:26PM +0200, Clément Péron wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 12:32, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 06:03:28PM +0200, Clément Péron wrote:
> > > Allwinner H6 has a second watchdog on the r-blocks which is
> > > compatible with the A31.
> > >
> > > This commit add the H6 compatible for the r_watchdog.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <peron.clem@...il.com>
> >
> > Unless you have some evidence that the two blocks are different, then
> > you should just reuse the same one.
>
> I have no evidence it's different nor identical, it's not documented
> in the user manual.
> I thought it would better to have separate bindings in case there is a
> difference.
> Than don't have and find later that we have to introduce one.

It's a tradeoff. Pushing your logic to the limit, we would have a
compatible for each controller embedded in an SoC.

This would be unmaintainable, and slightly useless since that case is
very unlikely.

However, having differences between SoCs is quite common, hence why we
have different compatibles for each SoC.

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)