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]

Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 09:10:59 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To:     Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     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

On 08/02/2022 03:06, Julius Werner wrote:
> Apologies for only noticing this a couple of months too late... but
> this patch added the same thing to the "jedec,lpddr2" bindings that
> were previously added by
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg413733.html to
> "jedec,lpddr3", but in a slightly incompatible manner. Should we
> adjust it to make them consistent (two bytes in one property, rather
> than a separate property for each)? Or is it too late to change that?

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

The latest discussion is about dtschema conversion, so no new fields are
being added:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220206135807.211767-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com/

Feel free to propose something new on top of it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof