linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 02/13] dt-bindings: mfd: Add bindings for sl28cpld

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: <7aebbd1986d1a0e57fd34c2ccf5e03e3@walle.cc>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:39:30 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/13] dt-bindings: mfd: Add bindings for sl28cpld

Am 2020-07-28 11:20, schrieb Lee Jones:
>> What sounds bogus? That we name the implementation sl28cpld?
>> How is that different to like adt7411? Its just a name made up by
>> the vendor. So if there is a new version of the adt7411 the vendor
>> might name it adt7412.
> 
> Using an arbitrary string as a compatible would be bogus.
> 
> So here 'sl28cpld' is the device name, so it's not actually
> arbitrary.  That's a good start.
> 
>> We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the problem here?
> 
> Do you though?  So 'sl28cpld-r1' is the name of the device?  The name
> that is quoted from the (private) datasheet?  Because looking at the
> implementation and going by the conversation, it sounds as though
> you-re only adding the '-r1' piece to the compatible string for
> revision identification.  Which if true, is not usually allowed and
> warrants intervention by Rob.

Revisions would imply backwards compatibility, correct? I'm not
aming for that. Yes, I appended that "-r1" (in the lack of any
better suffix) because I didn't want to tie the base name to the
simple MFD, just in case. And isn't that the whole purpose of
the compatible string? To connect a driver to a piece of
hardware?

But even here, I don't care anymore. I strip it again. So future
incarnations which aren't compatible with simple mfd will need
another name. So what.

-michael