linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: dma: qcom: gpi: use sm6350 fallback

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: <8bf0046c-51a9-8244-e355-78dd2725944b@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:35:32 -0400
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Richard Acayan <mailingradian@...il.com>,
        Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: dma: qcom: gpi: use sm6350 fallback

On 17/10/2022 06:37, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 15-10-22, 10:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Several devices like SM6350, SM8150 and SC7280 are actually compatible,
>> so use one compatible fallback for all of them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,gpi.yaml | 10 ++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,gpi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,gpi.yaml
>> index 750b40c32213..0c2894498845 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,gpi.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,gpi.yaml
>> @@ -20,12 +20,14 @@ properties:
>>    compatible:
>>      oneOf:
>>        - enum:
>> -          - qcom,sc7280-gpi-dma
>>            - qcom,sdm845-gpi-dma
>>            - qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma
>> -          - qcom,sm8350-gpi-dma
>> -          - qcom,sm8450-gpi-dma
>> -
>> +      - items:
>> +          - enum:
>> +              - qcom,sc7280-gpi-dma
>> +              - qcom,sm8350-gpi-dma
>> +              - qcom,sm8450-gpi-dma
>> +          - const: qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma
> 
> I think it makes sense but can we document this in binding as well that
> why people should use these two compatibles. I am fine with this being
> comments here..

It is kind of implied (and maybe obvious) from the bindings - a list of
two items, one enum and one fallback compatible.

We usually do not document such patterns in the bindings with comments
for that reason. If you insist, I can add it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof