linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: mtd: Document use of nvmem-partitions compatible

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:   Sun, 7 Mar 2021 18:04:50 +0100
From:   Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: mtd: Document use of
 nvmem-partitions compatible

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:48:32AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 16.02.2021 22:26, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > Document nvmem-partitions compatible used to treat mtd partitions as a
> > nvmem provider.
> 
> I'm just wondering if "nvmem-partitions" is accurate enough. Partitions
> bit sounds a bit ambiguous in the mtd context.
> 
> What do you think about "mtd-nvmem-cells" or just "nvmem-cells"?

I read somewhere that mtd is not so standard so "nvmem-cells" should be the
right compatible.
To sum up, with v2 I should change the compatible name and just push the
2 and 3 patch. (waiting your fix to be accepted) Correct?