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]

Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:36:53 +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 09:13, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> OK, I see it now. I can't think of any case of handling all devices
> covered with suc a wide brcm,bcmbca binding.

Maybe there is some common part of a SoC which that generic compatible
would express?

Most archs don't use soc-wide generic compatible, because of reasons I
mentioned - no actual benefits for anyone from such compatible.

But there are exceptions. I fouun socfpga and apple. The apple sounds as
mistake to me, because the generic "apple,arm-platform" compatible looks
like covering all possible Apple ARM platforms. I think Apple ARM
designs in 20 years will not be compatible at all with current design,
so such broad compatible is not useful... but that's only my opinion.

> 
> This leads me to another question if we should actually totally drop
> brcm,bcmbca from other SoCs bindings, see linux-next's
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,bcmbca.yaml

This would be tricky as it was already accepted, unless all sit in
linux-next and did not make to v5.19-rc1.

Best regards,
Krzysztof