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  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]
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:02:17 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <>
To:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <>
Cc:     Bhanu Prakash Maiya <>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        Lee Jones <>,
        Furquan Shaikh <>,
        Raul E Rangel <>,
        Eric Peers <>,
        Duncan Laurie <>,
        Benson Leung <>,
        Guenter Roeck <>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: Add DT compatible string "google,cros_ec_uart"

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:53 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
<> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> On 16/7/20 21:13, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:16:04PM -0700, Bhanu Prakash Maiya wrote:
> >> From: Bhanu Prakash Maiya <>
> >>
> >> Add DT compatible string in
> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/cros_ec.txt
> >
> > Need to update this.
> >
> > With that,
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <>
> >
> So this is an ACPI-only driver that is instantiated by using the Device Tree
> namespace link in ACPI. I am not sure how to deal with this, but I suspect we
> need a proper OF binding definition before accept it.

In that case, NAK because I have no bandwidth or desire for ACPI
stuff. The DT bindings in ACPI concept is flawed.

> The driver gets at least the baudrate and the flowcontrol from ACPI resources,
> so I'm wondering if we should also add the properties in the device-tree
> description (although we're not able to really test because there is not OF
> hardware that supports it yet). Or is fine to just accept the compatible for now
> and we can do this later when we have the possibility to test with OF-based
> hardware.

That's all defined by the serial device binding already, so it doesn't
really matter here.

You can keep my R-by, but don't send me more ACPI crap.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists