linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add LG Electronics

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:   Sat, 29 Jan 2022 11:34:17 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To:     Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>, Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com>,
        Max Merchel <Max.Merchel@...group.com>,
        Hao Fang <fanghao11@...wei.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jean THOMAS <virgule@...nthomas.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add LG Electronics

On 29/01/2022 10:45, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> Have we sorted this lg- vs. lge- ?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are both:
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974-lge-nexus5-hammerhead.dts
>>>>> vs
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8026-lg-lenok.dts
>>>>
>>>> Probably renaming/unifying/correcting prefix in existing compatibles is
>>>> not worth the effort. This would make a mess and affect other DTS users.
>>>
>>> If wanted I can send a patch renaming the Nexus 5 to just LG, this would
>>> adjust both compatible in the file (which shouldn't really affect
>>> anything) and the filename (which probably will affect various scripts
>>> and whatnot used by existing users of the dtb).
>>> Is this something that can be done in mainline or should we rather just
>>> let it be? I'm not sure what the policies there are.
>>
>> The "lge" compatible is already in the bindings, so it should not be
>> changed without valid reason. Imagine there is an user-space code
>> parsing compatibles to adjust some power-management settings to
>> different models. It would be broken now.
>>
>> What could be done is to mark it as deprecated and a add new one:
>> compatible = "lg,hammerhead", "lge,hammerhead", "qcom,msm8974";
>> This should be safe for user-space and allow transition to common "lg".
> 
> What can or should be done about the filename then?

I don't have an opinion on the filename. It does not matter to me. :)
You can change it to "lg" or keep "lge". I don't see much benefits of
changing it but I don't mind keeping it consistent.

Best regards,
Krzysztof