linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] media: dt-bindings: add bindings for Toshiba TC358746

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: <20220921083513.drt4rggqj7tpaygr@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:35:13 +0200
From:   Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, jacopo@...ndi.org,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kishon@...com, hverkuil@...all.nl,
        vkoul@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        mchehab@...nel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] media: dt-bindings: add bindings for Toshiba
 TC358746

On 22-09-21, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/09/2022 19:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Explicit bus types in DT indeed makes it easier for drivers, so if a
> >>> device can support multiple bus types (even if not implemented yet in
> >>> the corresponding drivers), the property should be there.
> >>
> >> Okay, I will make it required.
> >>
> >>>> Why do you have hsync-active and vsync-active if both are always zero? Can
> >>>> the hardware not support other configuration?
> >>
> >> Sure the device supports toggling the logic but it is not implemented.
> >> So the bindings needs to enforce it to 0 right now. As soon as it is
> >> implemented & tested, we can say that both is supported :)
> > 
> > Bindings are not supposed to be limited by the existing driver
> > implementation, so you can already allow both polarities, and just
> > reject the unsupported options in the driver at probe time. Future
> > updates to the driver won't require a binding change.
> > 
> 
> +1

I don't wanna do that because this let the binding user assume that
this mode is already supported. Adapting a binding is just 1 commit and
since the property is already existing, there is no breaking change.

Regards,
  Marco