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: <Y3Jyi+PdKOSlTGi1@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:53:31 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        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>,
        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 07:51:31PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 19:42, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 07:14:48PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:

> >> Ugh. Please, no. We have symbol clocks for UFS PHY, USB+DP clocks for
> >> USB+DP PHY, but let's not go for the unified clocks index definition.
> > 
> > Yeah, this is the kind of issues I wanted to avoid by not using a per
> > SoC header for three clocks which will almost always use the same
> > indexes.
> > 
> > Because how can you be sure that your unified per-PHY type defines will
> > never have to be amended? Or some index left out?
> > 
> > The only way then is to have per-SoC defines which is a pain to
> > maintain (just consider that driver mapping table when some odd SoC
> > shows up).
> 
> My vote is definitely against a per-SoC defines.

Simply stating that doesn't address the problem I was trying to
describe.

Johan