linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] nvmem: lan9662-otp: add support.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f04e7baa-ad75-57c3-bdd9-0a9aff7935c3@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:17:24 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] nvmem: lan9662-otp: add support.

On 31/08/2022 17:52, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>>> If I put only one entry:
>>> ---
>>> static const struct of_device_id lan9662_otp_match[] = {
>>>      { .compatible = "microchip,lan9662-otp", },
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Wouldn't be a problem that the binding mentions also lan9668?
>>
>> No. What could be the problem exactly, which you are afraid? Why
>> implementation should be a problem for a binding (which we try to be
>> mostly implementation independent)?
> 
> The implementation wouldn't be a problem for the binding.
> The only thing was if the binding has more compatible strings than what
> the driver supports. As an example, in the binding we mention about
> lan9668 but nothing in the driver.

What is that "only thing"? What is the problem? It does not matter
really if the driver mentions or does not mention lan9668, because it's
not related...

Best regards,
Krzysztof