linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] ARM: dts: uniphier: Remove compatible "snps,dw-pcie-ep" from Pro5 pcie-ep node

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: <64e3702b-f09b-5a2e-b6a5-4c8752fbad77@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 10:33:50 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] ARM: dts: uniphier: Remove compatible
 "snps,dw-pcie-ep" from Pro5 pcie-ep node

On 30/07/2022 13:58, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 2:20 AM Kunihiko Hayashi
> <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com> wrote:
>>
>> UniPhier PCIe endpoint controller doesn't use "snps,dw-pcie-ep" compatible,
>> so this is no longer needed. Remove the compatible string from the pcie-ep
>> node to fix the following warning.
>>
>>   uniphier-pro5-epcore.dtb: pcie@...00000: compatible: ['socionext,uniphier-pro5-pcie-ep', 'snps,dw-pcie-ep'] is too long
>>       From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/socionext,uniphier-pcie-ep.yaml
>>
> 
> This sounds like a problem with the binding rather than the dt file. Is this not
> a designware pci endpoint? Should it be documented in that binding instead?

Depends. We had one or two similar cases, where we dropped the snps/dw
generic compatible, because device was actually quite different and
could not match against snps/dw compatible. IOW, if device bound/matched
via generic compatible it would be entirely non-operational. Logically I
think it is okay to drop the generic compatible. Different question is
any ABI break.

Best regards,
Krzysztof