linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/43] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: drop unused vddp-ref-clk supply

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: <YsQkmUVla9+CDYly@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 13:46:33 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/43] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: drop unused
 vddp-ref-clk supply

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/07/2022 11:42, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Only UFS PHY nodes in mainline have a vddp-ref-clk supply. Drop it from
> > the PCIe PHY binding.
> > 
> 
> That's not really good reason. Either the hardware uses ref-clk supply
> or not. Now it looks like you copied everything from common schema and
> clean things up. That's not how it should be organize.

Yes, and I've been pretty clear that that's how I'm going about to
disentangle the current binding.
 
> It's okay to copy existing bindings which are applicable and then in
> separate patch deprecate things or remove pieces which are not correct.
> But all this in assumption that the first copy already selected only
> applicable parts.

But how would you be able to tell what parts I left out from the
original copy unless I first do the split and then explicitly remove
things that were presumably *never* applicable and just happened to be
added because all bindings where combined in one large mess of a schema?

Johan