linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] mailbox: qcom-apcs: Add SM6125 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:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:37:54 -0500
From:   Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        jamipkettunen@...ainline.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] mailbox: qcom-apcs: Add SM6125 compatible

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:52 PM Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> wrote:


> > > > > > In any case, we can't really get rid of the first 13 instances though...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, we have the problem that we have DTBs out there that relies on
> > > > > these compatibles, but as Jassi requests we'd have to start describing
> > > > > the internal register layout in DT - which this binding purposefully
> > > > > avoids.
> > > > >
> > > > Not these strings, but 'offset' and 'clock-name' as optional
> > > > properties that new platforms can use.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Relying on completely generic compatibles to match the driver and then
> > > distinguish each platform using additional properties is exactly what
> > > Qualcomm does downstream.  The community has clarified countless times
> > > that this is not the way to write DT bindings.
> > >
> > Yes, and I don't suggest it otherwise. For h/w quirks and
> > extra/missing features, it does make sense to have different
> > compatibles.
> >
>
> But what you're suggesting assumes that they are the same and that we're
> done implementing all the software for this block. The platform specific
> compatible allows us to postpone that question.
>
It has been 4yrs and 13 platforms. The compatible strings are used
only to match the hardcoded 'offset' values. Maybe we cross the bridge
when we get to it.
I think, when the drivers are enhanced and the kernel binary needs to
be updated, we could update the dtb as well? Or is it too hard on
these platforms?

cheers.