linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/14] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-usb3-dp: fix sc8280xp bindings

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: <Y3JxZ+yFMLZkwNBi@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:48:39 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-usb3-dp: fix sc8280xp
 bindings

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 05:39:26PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 17:32, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > Fair enough, I'll drop it. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to
> > describe the indexes currently and most bindings simply ignore to do so.
> > 
> > So what is the preference then? Just leave things undocumented, listing
> > indexes in a free-text 'description', or adding a free-text reference to
> > a binding header file and using those define names in a free-text
> > 'description'?
> 
> Either 2 or 3. Several bindings for small number of constants choose
> option 2.

Ok, we have three now, but USB4 will bump this to ten or so.
 
> > And if going with the last option, does this mean that every SoC and PHY
> > type needs its own header for those three clocks or so to avoid having
> > a common dumping ground header file where indexes will not necessarily
> > be 0-based and consecutive.
> 
> phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c has one qcom_qmp_dp_clks_hw_get(), so why would you
> have many of header files?

We don't know what kind of clock outputs later revisions of these PHYs
will have. The only way to guarantee 0-based consecutive indexes appears
to be to use per-SoC defines (e.g. as for the GCC bindings).

Johan