linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/9] dt-bindings: arm64: bcmbca: Update BCM4908 description

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: <883c2ad4c36220b488519a8902ad72bc@milecki.pl>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 08:51:09 +0200
From:   Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     William Zhang <william.zhang@...adcom.com>,
        Linux ARM List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        joel.peshkin@...adcom.com, dan.beygelman@...adcom.com,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Anand Gore <anand.gore@...adcom.com>,
        Kursad Oney <kursad.oney@...adcom.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/9] dt-bindings: arm64: bcmbca: Update BCM4908
 description

On 2022-07-21 08:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/07/2022 02:06, William Zhang wrote:
>> Append "brcm,bcmbca" to BCM4908 chip family compatible strings. Add
>> generic 4908 board entry.
> 
> This does not explain at all why you are doing it. Improve your commit
> messages.

To clarify it from my side (and maybe help a bit):

1. As I understand it BCMBCA is a one big family of SoCs.
2. BCM4908 is a subset of that family (a subfamily?) designed for a
    specific group of devices.

If that's correct I think William it's what you should describe in your
commit message. That would make binding more accurate and should be a
good argument for your change (I believe).