linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

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: <6ed642ea-424d-49ed-eb30-e09588720373@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:29:22 +0200
From:   Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic
 subnodes compatibles

Hi,

On 28/09/2022 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
>> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.
> 
> Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does
> not make sense, please say why.

We had the same debate at submission 7y ago, some of the pm8018 new compatible
were rejected in bindings & drivers so I left both...

As of today only the pwrkey bindings is missing, so should I resubmit the pm8018-pwrkey bidings and
drop the pm8921-pwrkey compatible ?

> 
>>
>> The pwrkey compatible is left to PM8921, unlike the others because
>> the interface is stricly compatible with the PM9821 pwrkey.
> 
> typo: strictly
> typo: PM8921
> 
> Again, why? The old code looked correct. In all three places.

The qcom,pm8018-rtc require a single compatible, same for qcom,pm8018, so what's the way to fix it ?

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
>>
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
Thanks,
Neil