linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] amlogic: arm: add Amlogic SM1 based Khadas VIM3 variant bindings

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: <CAFBinCBLxW2r-N0z10Z7uUpvdoPikkZ0Lca6J-NctGYXtuxb2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:18:22 +0200
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To:     Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
Cc:     khilman@...libre.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] amlogic: arm: add Amlogic SM1 based Khadas VIM3
 variant bindings

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:42 AM Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.yaml
> >> index b48ea1e4913a..2751dd778ce0 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.yaml
> >> @@ -150,9 +150,10 @@ properties:
> >>            - const: amlogic,s922x
> >>            - const: amlogic,g12b
> >>
> >> -      - description: Boards with the Amlogic Meson SM1 S905X3 SoC
> >> +      - description: Boards with the Amlogic Meson SM1 S905X3/D3/Y3 SoC
> >>          items:
> >>            - enum:
> >>                - seirobotics,sei610
> >> +              - khadas,vim3
>
> Khadas asked me to rename the board to "vim3l", which is the commercial name,
> should I only change the DT name or also the compatible "khadas,vim3l" ?
I vote for being consistent:
- rename the .dts to vim3l
- and change the compatible string

> >>            - const: amlogic,sm1
> > on the GXL we differentiate between S905X and S905D
> > do we need to differentiate S905X3 from S905D3 (for example)?
>
> From a pure SoC die perspective they are the same, exactly like
> the S905X and S905D, only the package changes.
> So only the board DT will determine which eth PHY is used,
> if a DSI panel is connected, a demodulator is connected.. even
> if the underlying package is S905Y3 without any of these pins
> available.
OK, I see - fine for me then
GXL's S905W and/or S805X are the "special cases" then which (AFAIK)
use a different (smaller) package (so it made sense to differentiate
all GXL SoCs)


Martin