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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 22:23:07 +0200 From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl> To: William Zhang <william.zhang@...adcom.com> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, Linux ARM List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, kursad.oney@...adcom.com, anand.gore@...adcom.com, dan.beygelman@...adcom.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, joel.peshkin@...adcom.com, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: arm64: bcmbca: Merge BCM4908 into BCMBCA On 2022-07-13 20:37, William Zhang wrote: > Hi Rafal, > > On 7/13/22 03:58, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> On 2022-07-13 12:50, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> On 2022-07-13 02:57, William Zhang wrote: >>>> On 7/12/22 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 12/07/2022 19:37, William Zhang wrote: >>>>>>>> + - description: BCM4908 Family based boards >>>>>>>> + items: >>>>>>>> + - enum: >>>>>>>> + # BCM4908 SoC based boards >>>>>>>> + - brcm,bcm94908 >>>>>>>> + - asus,gt-ac5300 >>>>>>>> + - netgear,raxe500 >>>>>>>> + # BCM4906 SoC based boards >>>>>>>> + - brcm,bcm94906 >>>>>>>> + - netgear,r8000p >>>>>>>> + - tplink,archer-c2300-v1 >>>>>>>> + - enum: >>>>>>>> + - brcm,bcm4908 >>>>>>>> + - brcm,bcm4906 >>>>>>>> + - brcm,bcm49408 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is wrong. brcm,bcm94908 followed by brcm,bcm4906 does not >>>>>>> look >>>>>>> like valid list of compatibles. >>>>>>> >>>>>> For 4908 board variant, it will need to be followed by 4908 chip. >>>>>> Sorry >>>>>> for the basic question but is there any requirement to enforce >>>>>> this kind >>>>>> of rule? I would assume dts writer know what he/she is doing and >>>>>> select >>>>>> the right combination. >>>>> >>>>> The entire point of DT schema is to validate DTS. Combination like >>>>> above >>>>> prevents that goal. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Krzysztof >>>> Understand the DT schema purpose. But items property allows multiple >>>> enums in the list which gives a lot of flexibility but make it hard >>>> to >>>> validate. I am not familiar with DT schema, is there any directive >>>> to >>>> specify one enum value depending on another so dts validation tool >>>> can >>>> report error if combination is wrong? >>>> >>>> This is our preferred format of all bcmbca compatible string >>>> especially when we could have more than 10 chip variants for the >>>> same >>>> chip family and we really want to work on the chip family id. We >>>> will >>>> make sure they are in the right combination in our own patch and >>>> patch >>>> from other contributors. Would this work? If not, I will probably >>>> have >>>> to revert the change of 4908(maybe append brcm,bcmbca as this chip >>>> belongs to the same bca group) and use "enum board variant", "const >>>> main chip id", "brcm,bca" for all other chips as our secondary >>>> choice. >>> >>> I'm not sure why I didn't even receive 1/3 and half of discussion >>> e-mails. >>> >>> You can't just put all strings into a single bag and allow mixing >>> them >>> in any combos. Please check how it's properly handled in the current >>> existing binding: >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,bcm4908.yaml >>> >>> Above binding enforces that non-matching compatible strings are not >>> used >>> together. >> >> I just noticed you're actually removing brcm,bcm4908.yaml in the 2/3 >> so >> you must be aware of that file. >> >> So you see a cleanly working binding in the brcm,bcm4908.yaml but >> instead copying it you decided to wrote your own one from scratch. >> Incorrectly. >> >> This smells of NIH (not invented here). Please just use that binding I >> wrote and move if it needed. > > Not mean to discredit any of your work and I did copy over your > binding and combine them into one SoC entry to the new bcmbca.yaml and > add you as one of the maintainer to this file. As this change would > certainly concern you, that's why I sent RFC first. As I explained in > the cover letter, the purpose of the change is to reduce the number of > compatible strings and keep one entry for one chip family due to > possible large number of chip variants. But since there is no way to > validate the combination, I will copy the existing 4908 bindings as > they are now Right. I believe we need that. > but I would propose to append "brcm, bcmbca" as it is > part of bcmbca chip. And for the other chips, we would just use enum > "board variant", const "main chip id", const "brcm,bca". Does that > sound good to you? Nitpicking: you meant "brcm,bcmbca" (typo) but sounds absolutely fine!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists