linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: mmc: Add Pensando Elba SoC 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 08:30:43 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Brad Larson <brad@...sando.io>
Cc:     Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, dac2@...sando.io,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: mmc: Add Pensando Elba SoC binding

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 1:36 AM Brad Larson <brad@...sando.io> wrote:
>
> Pensando Elba ARM 64-bit SoC is integrated with this IP and
> explicitly controls byte-lane enables resulting in an additional
> reg property resource.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brad Larson <brad@...sando.io>
> ---
> Change from V3:
> - Change from elba-emmc to elba-sd4hc to match file convention
> - Use minItems: 1 and maxItems: 2 to pass schema check
>
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/cdns,sdhci.yaml | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/cdns,sdhci.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/cdns,sdhci.yaml
> index 4207fed62dfe..278a71b27488 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/cdns,sdhci.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/cdns,sdhci.yaml
> @@ -19,10 +19,12 @@ properties:
>        - enum:
>            - microchip,mpfs-sd4hc
>            - socionext,uniphier-sd4hc
> +          - pensando,elba-sd4hc
>        - const: cdns,sd4hc
>
>    reg:
> -    maxItems: 1
> +    minItems: 1
> +    maxItems: 2
>

Shouldn't the binding describe what the register areas are? If there
is only one of them, it is fairly clear, but when you have the choice
between one and two, it gets ambiguous, and there is a risk that
another SoC might have a different register area in the second entry,
making it incompatible.

        Arnd