linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: firmware: scm: Add QDU1000/QRU1000 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: <CAA8EJprQoCQzr2x0JA9_b3MDE=oOTODyHD23debEL1MCE1mWBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:36:02 +0300
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: firmware: scm: Add QDU1000/QRU1000 compatibles

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 09:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2022 00:14, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 01:02, Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/1/2022 4:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 01/10/2022 05:06, Melody Olvera wrote:
> >>>> Add compatibles for scm driver for QDU1000 and QRU1000 platforms.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml | 2 ++
> >>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
> >>>> index c5b76c9f7ad0..b47a5dda3c3e 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
> >>>> @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ properties:
> >>>>            - qcom,scm-sm8250
> >>>>            - qcom,scm-sm8350
> >>>>            - qcom,scm-sm8450
> >>>> +          - qcom,scm-qdu1000
> >>>> +          - qcom,scm-qru1000
> >
> > I think after seeing all the patchsets it's time to ask the following
> > question. Do we really need a duplicate compatibility families:
> > qdu1000 vs qru1000? I'd suggest using a single set of compatibile
> > strings in most of the cases.
> > Settle down onto a single name (qdu,qru, qdru, whatever) and define
> > distinct compat strings only when there is an actual difference?
> >
> > E.g .we don't have separate compatible strings for all the sda660,
> > apq8096, etc. unless this is required by the corresponding hardware
> > block not being compatible with corresponding sdm or msm counterpart.
> >
>
> I am not that fluent in Qualcomm naming, so let me ask - what are the
> differences between QDU and QRU?
>
> For compatible (and/or similar) devices the general recommendation is to
> have specific compatibles followed by fallback. Even if devices are
> very, very, very similar, usually the recommendation still stays.

Well, true. But in some cases we handle this by using a single set of
compatibles. Consider e.g. sa8155 vs sm8150 (sa8155 overrides just few
compats that differ). Or qrb5165 vs sm8250 (there is no separate
qrb5165.dtsi). APQ8096 (#include "msm8996.dtsi"). Etc.

I'd say this really depends on the actual difference between qru and qdu.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry