linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 12/14] dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: add ocelot-ext documentation

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: <20221004121517.4j5637hnioepsxgd@skbuf>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 15:15:17 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 12/14] dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: add
 ocelot-ext documentation

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:19:33PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > +  # Ocelot-ext VSC7512
> > +  - |
> > +    spi {
> > +        soc@0 {
> 
> soc in spi is a bit confusing.

Do you have a better suggestion for a node name? This is effectively a
container for peripherals which would otherwise live under a /soc node,
if they were accessed over MMIO by the internal microprocessor of the
SoC, rather than by an external processor over SPI.

> How is this example different than previous one (existing soc example)?
> If by compatible and number of ports, then there is no much value here.

The positioning relative to the other nodes is what's different.