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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJiuCcdE-RtiGpPKe-BMJpS-m=wOXy+30vS7iAvd6Ng7gaZWNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 16:02:28 +0200
From:   Clément Péron <peron.clem@...il.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.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 Thu, 23 May 2019 at 14:57, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes, that make sense, I will send a new version soon,

Thanks for the review,
Clément

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