linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 01/15] dt-bindings: add pwrseq device tree bindings

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]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqLAnJqZ95_bf6_fFmPJFMjuy43UfP2UxzEmFMNnG_t-Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:53:59 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        ath10k@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/15] dt-bindings: add pwrseq device tree bindings

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:42 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 26/10/2021 15:53, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 06:53:53AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> Add device tree bindings for the new power sequencer subsystem.
> >> Consumers would reference pwrseq nodes using "foo-pwrseq" properties.
> >> Providers would use '#pwrseq-cells' property to declare the amount of
> >> cells in the pwrseq specifier.
> >
> > Please use get_maintainers.pl.
> >
> > This is not a pattern I want to encourage, so NAK on a common binding.
>
>
> Could you please spend a few more words, describing what is not
> encouraged? The whole foo-subsys/#subsys-cells structure?

No, that's generally how common provider/consumer style bindings work.

> Or just specifying the common binding?

If we could do it again, I would not have mmc pwrseq binding. The
properties belong in the device's node. So don't generalize the mmc
pwrseq binding.

It's a kernel problem if the firmware says there's a device on a
'discoverable' bus and the kernel can't discover it. I know you have
the added complication of a device with 2 interfaces, but please,
let's solve one problem at a time.

Rob