linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] dt-bindings: i2c: imx: update schema to align with original txt binding

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJShTL4zf2Bh=fYHfsujKu1rtuduxp7EKYsRqEXdkLCEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 08:23:43 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>
Cc:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] dt-bindings: i2c: imx: update schema to align
 with original txt binding

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:04 PM Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com> wrote:
>
> When the binding was converted from txt to yaml, it actually added more
> constrains than the original txt binding which was already used in many
> in-tree DTSes.  Some of the newly added constrains are either not valid
> or not neccessary.

IMO, both of these should be fixed in the dts files.

> Not all SoCs use ipg as the clock name for i2c.  There is no point in
> having SoC integration information defined in i2c binding.  Remove the
> clock name requirement in the schema.

Any name you want is not fine. Your choices are remove clock-names,
add all the names used, or change everyone to use 'ipg'.

> The original txt binding didn't require the order of tx and rx for
> dmas/dma-names.  Many in tree DTSes are already using the other order.
> Both orders should just work fine.  Update the schema to allow both.

Doesn't sound like a case where defining the order is challenging.

Rob