linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Discussion: dt-bindings: display: msm: dsi-controller-main: fix the 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 16:26:04 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc:     David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Krishna Manikandan <mkrishn@...eaurora.org>,
        ~okias/devicetree@...ts.sr.ht, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Discussion: dt-bindings: display: msm:
 dsi-controller-main: fix the binding

On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 02:34:08AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 23:54, David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz> wrote:
> >
> > This binding is not much validating the old DSI v2.
> >
> > Currently we don't differentiate old v2 from new versions,
> > so we need to figure out how to validate them.
> >
> > I propose specific compatible depending on mdss version, but I would be
> > glad, if someone with deeper knowledge proposed the names.
> >
> > I'm willing to implement it then and back from autodetection.
> 
> I'd suggest to use hardware-specific compatible for apq8064 (and maybe
> other v2 hosts if somebody adds support). For example
> "qcom,apq8064-dsi-ctrl" or "qcom,dsi-ctrl-apq8064" (no strong
> preference here).

The former.

> For 6G hosts it will probably make sense to use IP versions instead
> ("qcom-dsi-ctrl-6g-v2.4.1").

Humm, we went down the path of version numbers for QCom blocks, but the 
result was not much reuse of same version on more than 2-3 parts if 
that. So stick with SoCs for naming unless there's a strong case that 
version numbers to SoC parts is 1 to many.

Rob