linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: bus: Add firewall 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:01:16 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
Cc:     mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stefano.stabellini@...inx.com, tomase@...inx.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: bus: Add firewall bindings

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 03:25:19PM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> Add schemas for firewall consumer and provider.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> ---
>  .../bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml      | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  .../bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-provider.yaml      | 18 +++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-provider.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..d3d76f99b38d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Common Bus Firewall consumer binding

I'm all for common bindings, but I want to see more than 1 user before 
accepting this. There's been some other postings for similar h/w 
(AFAICT) recently.

> +
> +description: |
> +  Firewall properties provide the possible firewall bus controller
> +  configurations for a device.
> +  Bus firewall controllers are typically used to control if a hardware
> +  block can perform read or write operations on bus.
> +  The contents of the firewall bus configuration properties are defined by
> +  the binding for the individual firewall controller device.
> +
> +  The first configuration 'firewall-0' or the one named 'default' is
> +  applied before probing the device itself.

This is a Linux implementation detail and debatable whether the core 
should do this or drivers.

> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
> +
> +# always select the core schema
> +select: true
> +
> +properties:
> +  firewall-0: true
> +
> +  firewall-names: true
> +
> +patternProperties:
> +  "firewall-[0-9]":
> +    $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array"

So I guess multiple properties is to encode all the modes into DT like 
pinctrl does. Is that really necessary? I don't think so as I wouldn't 
expect modes to be defined by the consumer, but by the provider in this 
case. To use pinctrl as a example, we could have pad setting per MMC 
speed. That has to be in the consumer side as the pinctrl knows nothing 
about MMC.

Rob