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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 15:52:09 +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 13:52, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 08/31/2022 10:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
>>
>> On 31/08/2022 09:42, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>>
>>> +static const struct of_device_id lan9662_otp_match[] = {
>>> +     { .compatible = "microchip,lan9662-otp", },
>>> +     { .compatible = "microchip,lan9668-otp", },
>>
>> This is still wrong, does not match your bindings at all and still
>> duplicates entries without driver data. One entry - 9662.
> 
> I have look at some other drivers, where I can see they don't have any
> driver data. For example [1] and the bindings are here [2].
> 
> [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new.c#L1832
> [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,cpsw-switch.yaml#L23

There are plenty of poor examples in Linux kernel code and it is not a
reason to re-use their patterns...

> Is this also wrong, or I still can't understand how the bindings are
> working?

The topic here is not that much related to the bindings, but device
matching in Linux kernel.

> 
> 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)?

Best regards,
Krzysztof