linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] dt-bindings: spi: Add Nuvoton WPCM450 Flash Interface Unit (FIU)

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 13:12:08 +0100
From:   Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] dt-bindings: spi: Add Nuvoton WPCM450 Flash
 Interface Unit (FIU)

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:09:15AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 06/11/2022 15:45, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
[...]
> >> This is rather obvious, so what you should comment is WHY or WHEN second
> >> resource can be omitted.
> > 
> > Ok, I'll add more reasoning, which is basically: The "memory" mapping is
> > only an optimization for faster access, knowledge of it is not necessary
> > for full operation of the device.
> > 
> >> Not every instance on the hardware has it?
> > 
> > AFAIK every instance has it, and there's unlikely to be any variation on
> > this fact anymore, because newer Nuvoton SoCs replaced the FIU with a
> > redesigned and incompatible version.
> > 
> > I admit that the value of making the "memory" mapping optional is rather
> > theoretical, and I'm open to making this reg item mandatory to simplify
> > the binding.
> 
> If every instance has it, then regardless whether it is actually used or
> not, just require second address?

Alright, I'll do that.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)