linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] dt-bindings: hwmon: ibm,cffps: move to trivial devices

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, 21 Sep 2021 16:40:32 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] dt-bindings: hwmon: ibm,cffps: move to trivial
 devices

On 21/09/2021 15:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:45:42PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/09/2021 14:30, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:28:29PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> The IBM Common Form Factor Power Supply Versions 1 and 2 bindings are
>>>> trivial, so they can be integrated into trivial devices bindings.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
>>>
>>> I won't accept any of those "move to trivial devices" patches. In many cases
>>> the bindings are simply incomplete. I can not and will not make that call,
>>> and I always did and will leave it up to driver authors to decide if they
>>> want to add a device to trivial devices or provide explicit bindings.
>>>
>>> Please stop sending those patches.
>>>
>>
>> Back in the older times, there were no trivial-devices and checkpatch
>> plus maintainers required documenting compatibles, so some of such
>> simple bindings were created.
>>
> 
> At the same time, as I said, the bindings for many chips are incomplete.
> For this driver, we can not make that call because the datasheet is not
> public. The same is true for dps650ab. For others, the datasheet is
> available, and a reasonable decision can be made if the chip may ever
> need more complete bindings.
> 
> So, let's qualify my statement: I'll accept such patches if you can show,
> from the datasheet, that it is unlikely that explicit bindings will ever
> be needed. That would be the case for LM70, for example. That would need
> more than a statement that "bindings are trivial", though. It also require
> a statement along the line that you have confirmed, from to the datasheet,
> that there is nothing to configure for this chip that would ever require
> explicit bindings.

Thanks for longer explanation. I agree with your reasoning here. I'll
re-check my move-to-trivial patches and, if applicable, send a new
version with better explanation.

I hope this won't stop from reviewing the few other patches in the set
adding separate bindings.


Best regards,
Krzysztof