linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: google,cros-ec-keyb: Introduce switches only compatible

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:   Mon, 2 May 2022 18:09:45 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>,
        "Joseph S. Barrera III" <joebar@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: google,cros-ec-keyb: Introduce
 switches only compatible

Hi,

On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 1:41 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Dmitry Torokhov (2022-05-02 10:43:06)
> > On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 10:00 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > That goes against the recently landed commit 4352e23a7ff2 ("Input:
> > > cros-ec-keyb - only register keyboard if rows/columns exist") but
> > > perhaps we should just _undo_ that that since it landed pretty
> > > recently and say that the truly supported way to specify that you only
> > > have keyboards/switches is with the compatible.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I am sorry, I am still confused on what exactly we are trying to solve
> > here? Having a device with the new device tree somehow run an older
> > kernel and fail? Why exactly do we care about this case?
>
> Yes, we're trying to solve the problem where a new device tree is used
> with an older kernel because it doesn't have the driver patch to only
> create an input device for the matrix when rows/columns properties are
> present. Otherwise applying that devicetree patch to an older kernel
> will break bisection.

I mean, we can also just say that we don't care about breaking
bisections and just say that the solution we already landed is fine.
It would certainly be less work at this point.

>
> > We have
> > implemented the notion that without rows/columns properties we will
> > not be creating input device for the matrix portion, all older devices
> > should have it defined, so the newer driver is compatible with them...
> >
>
> Agreed, that solves half the problem. This new compatible eases
> integration so that devicetrees can say they're compatible with the old
> binding that _requires_ the rows/column properties. By making the driver
> change we loosened that requirement, but the binding should have been
> making the properties required at the start because it fails to bind
> otherwise.
>
> My interpretation of what Doug is saying is that we should maintain that
> requirement that rows/columns exists if the original compatible
> google,cros-ec-keyb is present and use the new compatible to indicate
> that there are switches. Combining the two compatibles means there's
> switches and a matrix keyboard, having only the switches compatible
> means only switches, and having only the keyboard compatible means only
> matrix keyboard.

That's not quite what I was saying. See my response to patch #2.