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:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 13:59:20 -0500
From:   Nishanth Menon <>
To:     Rob Herring <>
CC:     Tero Kristo <>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, Suman Anna <>,
        Sinthu Raja <>,
        Hari Nagalla <>,
        Sinthu Raja <>,
        Jan Kiszka <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] dt-bindings: arm: ti: am642/am654: Allow for SoC
 only compatibles

On 12:54-20211004, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 03:14:28PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > Maintain consistency in K3 SoCs by allowing AM654 and AM642 platforms
> > just state SoC compatibles without specific board specific compatibles
> > aligned with what we have done for J721E/J7200 platforms as well.
> This is the wrong direction IMO. Why do you want this other than 
> alignment?

Many downstream boards tend not to have an specific compatible at least
during initial phase and I would like folks to start using checks to
make sure that the easy to catch issues via match against bindings are
already handled.

I am curious as to why you think this is wrong - because we permit an
alternative option that allows the board files to be less specific?

Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D)/Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

Powered by blists - more mailing lists