linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: document Qualcomm SM6375 SCM

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: <20220926165904.GA17938@quicinc.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:59:04 -0700
From:   Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@...cinc.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        <~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht>,
        <martin.botka@...ainline.org>,
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
        <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, <jamipkettunen@...ainline.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: document Qualcomm SM6375 SCM

On Sep 24 2022 10:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 24/09/2022 02:09, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > On Sep 21 2022 20:43, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> Does it? I did not define this compatible in the driver, so it does
> >> not consume any clocks.
> > 
> > The bindings should describe only those compatibles that the driver supports -
> > that is, both the driver and its bindings should be in sync.
> 
> That's not entirely true. Bindings describe the hardware in the most
> complete way we can. Not the driver. Whether driver supports something
> or not, is not relevant here, except that we don't want to document
> non-existing things or stuff out of tree.

Is this only applicable to compatibles or device tree properties in general?

> > 
> > Could you please update the driver with this compatible as well? Let's not
> > merge this change without that first.
> 
> This could be even merged without change in the driver. However it's not
> the case here as driver already supports it, so your request is fulfilled.

My concern is that if somebody specifies a compatible/device tree property that
the driver doesn't support, their expectations from adding that change will not
be met. In addition to having the bindings describe HW in full, I think the
driver should also be in sync with it for this reason.

Thank you.

Guru Das.