linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] dt-bindings: arm: ti: am642/am654: Allow for SoC only compatibles

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, 5 Oct 2021 13:31:17 -0500
From:   Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@...com>,
        Sinthu Raja <sinthu.raja@...tralsolutions.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] dt-bindings: arm: ti: am642/am654: Allow for SoC
 only compatibles

On 13:59-20211004, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 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?


Thinking again, I get the rationale. We are attempting to be specific,
and this patch reverses the direction. Agreed. Will drop applying this
patch. Also, for future SoCs, will insist on being specific compatible.

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