linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] dt-bindings: mtd: ti,gpmc-nand: Convert to yaml

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, 7 Sep 2021 18:35:45 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Cc:     Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, <tony@...mide.com>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <nm@...com>, <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        <nsekhar@...com>, <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] dt-bindings: mtd: ti,gpmc-nand: Convert to yaml

Hi Grygorii,

> >   
> >> +
> >> +  nand-bus-width:
> >> +    description:
> >> +      Bus width to the NAND chip
> >> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> >> +    enum: [8, 16]
> >> +    default: 8  
> > 
> > This is part of nand-controller.yaml binding and should not be there.
> >   
> >> +
> >> +allOf:
> >> +  - $ref: "../memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml"  
> > 
> > Maybe you need to reference the nand controller bindings as well
> >   
> 
> This will not work out of the box :( as nand-controller.yaml defines both
>   nand controller and nand memory. It potentially might work if it will be possible to split
> nand memory definition (or nand memory properties) out of and-controller.yaml, similarly to
> ti,gpmc-child.yaml from this series.

What you think would be the issue?

I am not opposed to split nand-controller.yaml into
nand-controller.yaml and nand-chip.yaml if it simplifies the
description of controllers but I don't get why it would be needed. In
particular since we expect all drivers to support the

nand-controller {
	controller-props;
	nand-chip {
		chip-props;
	}
}

organization which has been enforced since at least 2018. Having a
controller vs. chip representation is fundamentally right. But here I
see how "legacy" are these bindings with so much unneeded specific "ti,"
properties... On one side it would be good to verify that the driver
supports this representation (which I believe is true) and on the other
side maybe it's time to advertise "better" bindings as well.

Thanks,
Miquèl