linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/18] MIPS: DTS: jz4780: fix otg node as reported by dtbscheck

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: <51EEBAB0-849A-4AA5-80E0-B9FAC8FC5E14@goldelico.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 Apr 2022 15:37:51 +0200
From:   "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] MIPS: DTS: jz4780: fix otg node as reported by
 dtbscheck



> Am 09.04.2022 um 15:23 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>:
> 
> On 09/04/2022 15:18, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> hould have a specific compatible.
>>>> Please mention why it does not.
>>> 
>>> Agreed. The "snps,dwc2" should be a fallback string, otherwise there is no way to uniquely identify the JZ4780 implementation of the IP.
>> 
>> Well, there is no specifc implementation and driver for it. So no need to uniquely identify it.
> 
> Specific implementation and driver are not arguments here. This does not
> matter. It's really unrelated argument.

The argumentation is in reverse: if there is no need for a specialized driver or implementation,
why is there is a need to define a specialization.

Your argument was:
"there is no way to uniquely identify the JZ4780 implementation of the IP"

My question is:
"what do we need that for?"

> Bindings are not about implementation in Linux. Implementation can
> change, so bindings should also?

No. Implementations should be agnostic.