linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/9] dt-bindings: memory: lpddr2: Add revision-id properties

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: <CAODwPW-AMqQ+ZbnvUTuxP5Bbxdcy08GSXnhcLC+V6BW=OPYaqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 15:46:52 -0800
From:   Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc:     Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/9] dt-bindings: memory: lpddr2: Add revision-id properties

> Unfortunately I have no clue what patch you talk about ("this patch").
> There is no context here, no link except the older LPDDR3.

Sorry, I tried to reply to
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211006224659.21434-4-digetx@gmail.com/
([PATCH v5 3/9] dt-bindings: memory: lpddr2: Add revision-id
properties) and was hoping that would automatically provide context.
That patch added two one-cell properties `revision-id1` and
`revision-id2` to "jedec,lpddr2". Earlier in
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg413733.html ([PATCH]
dt-bindings: ddr: Add optional manufacturer and revision ID to
LPDDR3), I had added a single two-cell property `revision-id` for the
same purpose to "jedec,lpddr3".

I think it would be better if this was consistent between the two
types of LPDDR memory. Should I just send a patch that replaces the
two revision IDs in "jedec,lpddr2" with a single one according to the
principle of "jedec,lpddr3"? Or is it too late for that now and the
binding already considered stable and unchangeable?