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: <193845cb-6149-1ae6-5eb6-6b01ffcf763b@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:01:26 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
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 21/07/2022 08:51, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> 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).

That's better argument. But what's the benefit of adding generic
compatible? Devices cannot bind to it (it is too generic). Does it
describe the device anyhow? Imagine someone adding compatible
"brcm,all-soc-of-broadcom" - does it make any sense?

Best regards,
Krzysztof