linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pwm: imx: document i.MX compatibles

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: <20201012181404.GA1846397@bogus>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:14:04 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pwm: imx: document i.MX compatibles

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 02:02:39PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 03:41:57PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:26:09PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > Document all ARMv5, ARMv6 and ARMv7 i.MX compatibles to fix dtbs_check
> > > > warnings like:
> > > > 
> > > >   arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6dl-colibri-eval-v3.dt.yaml: pwm@...0000: compatible:0:
> > > >     'fsl,imx6q-pwm' is not one of ['fsl,imx8mm-pwm', 'fsl,imx8mn-pwm', 'fsl,imx8mp-pwm', 'fsl,imx8mq-pwm']
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.yaml | 11 +++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.yaml
> > > > index 473863eb67e5..379d693889f6 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/imx-pwm.yaml
> > > > @@ -25,6 +25,17 @@ properties:
> > > >            - fsl,imx27-pwm
> > > >        - items:
> > > >            - enum:
> > > > +              - fsl,imx25-pwm
> > > 
> > > The driver actually used fsl,imx27-pwm to bind ...
> > 
> > Yes, most of i.MX drivers use only few compatibles but DTSes and
> > bindings use multiple of them.  I was convinced during various talks
> > that the specific compatibles (so "fsl,imx6q-pwm, fsl,imx27-pwm") are
> > preferred than generic ones (so only "fsl,imx27-pwm"). NXP took it
> > to the another level creating compatibles for absolutely every flavor of
> > their CPU. And they mainlined it in DTSes...
> > 
> > The PWM is this crazy examples where, as you say, only two compatibles
> > are actually used for binding but DTSes uses more.
> 
> Yeah, these new compatible strings all seem to be used in the kernel, so
> we might as well document them.
> 
> That said, I did want to apply this patch, but that fails. Am I missing
> some other patch that you have sent out that touches this file? Actually
> it looks like this is because you've based this patch on linux-next, or
> perhaps the devicetree tree, because that contains commit d058717bdff4
> ("dt-bindings: pwm: imx-pwm: Add i.MX 8M compatibles") from you that
> adds a couple more compatible strings. Probably best for Rob to pick
> this up, then:
> 
> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
> 
> Rob, here's a patchwork link for you if you need one:
> 
> 	https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20200925212609.23093-1-krzk@kernel.org/
> 
> Although, looking at the devicetree-bindings instance version of that
> patch, I see that it's got a failing check attached (which looks like
> it can be ignored) and it's marked "Changes Requested", but no comments
> saying so.

I was assuming a rename at least.

> Not sure if you want anything done here?

I guess not, so I've applied it.

Rob