linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v7 1/2] dt-bindings: dma: Add bindings for intel LGM SOC

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: <DM6PR19MB3594E466A1B76229EC1395BABB160@DM6PR19MB3594.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:24:16 +0000
From:   Thomas Langer <tlanger@...linear.com>
To:     Amireddy Mallikarjuna reddy <mallikarjunax.reddy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        "vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        "chuanhua.lei@...ux.intel.com" <chuanhua.lei@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kim, Cheol Yong" <Cheol.Yong.Kim@...el.com>,
        "Wu, Qiming" <qi-ming.wu@...el.com>,
        "malliamireddy009@...il.com" <malliamireddy009@...il.com>,
        "peter.ujfalusi@...com" <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
        "Langer, Thomas" <thomas.langer@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 1/2] dt-bindings: dma: Add bindings for intel LGM SOC

Hello Reddy,

I think "Intel" should always be written with a capital "I" (like in the Subject, but except in the binding below)

> + compatible:
> +  oneOf:
> +   - const: intel,lgm-cdma
> +   - const: intel,lgm-dma2tx
> +   - const: intel,lgm-dma1rx
> +   - const: intel,lgm-dma1tx
> +   - const: intel,lgm-dma0tx
> +   - const: intel,lgm-dma3
> +   - const: intel,lgm-toe-dma30
> +   - const: intel,lgm-toe-dma31

Bindings are normally not per instance.
What if next generation chip gets more DMA modules but has no other changes in the HW block?
What is wrong with
  - const: intel,lgm-cdma
  - const: intel,lgm-hdma
and extra attributes to define the rx/tx restriction (or what do it mean?)? 
From the driver code I saw that "toe" is also just of type "hdma" and no further differences in code are done.

Best regards,
Thomas