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: <f54377f0-a152-9367-1b06-f49df7466282@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:47:43 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     neil.armstrong@...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

On 29/09/2022 13:39, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> The DTS looks correct unless you have some real argument that it is not.
>>>>
>>>> How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
>>>> document proper compatibles.
>>>
>>> What do you mean ? There's no point to keep the PM8921 compatibles, the gpio
>>
>> I asked at beginning - why? Why there is no point to keep them?
> 
> Because the HW is an PM8018 and the addition of the PM8921 was for policy/organization/struggling-to-make-dt-merged-before-clear-dt-policy/...
> so you say I should modify the Bindings to reflect the actual "pm8018", "pm8921" situation instead of changing the DT even if incorrect ?

Yes, this is what I already wrote:

"How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
document proper compatibles."

>>> and PMIC bindings already enforces to only have the PM8018 compatible.
>>
>> That is just partial argument because binding does not match DTS. So
>> something is not correct. Why do you assume bindings are correct?
> 
> Because bindings accurately reflects HW and DT doesn't.

That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are
correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the
HW in a proper way, while DTS does not?

Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the
hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong?

Best regards,
Krzysztof