linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mmc: fsl-imx-esdhc: allow more compatible combinations

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: <e1b1450b-9421-3732-2d74-50c47b5afb0e@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 7 Jan 2023 16:07:35 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
Cc:     ulf.hansson@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, shawnguo@...nel.org,
        s.hauer@...gutronix.de, kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
        linux-imx@....com, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mmc: fsl-imx-esdhc: allow more compatible
 combinations

On 07/01/2023 16:01, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:09:24 +0100
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/01/2023 15:07, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:00:56 +0100
>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]  
>>>>>> I asked to remove half-compatible. Not to enforce.
>>>>>>    
>>> so you are saying that allowing
>>> compatible = "A", "B" 
>>> is not ok, if B is not fully compatible. I agree with that
>>> one.  
>>
>> I did not say that. It's not related to this problem.
>>
> You said "I asked to remove half-compatible" that means to me
> remove "B" if not fully compatible with A which sounds sane to me.
> 
>> Again - you cannot have device which is and is not compatible with
>> something else. It's not a Schroedinger's cat to be in two states,
>> unless you explicitly document the cases (there are exception). If this
>> is such exception, it requires it's own documentation.
>>
> so conclusion:
> If having A and B half-compatible with A:
> 
> compatible = "A" only: is allowed to specifiy it the binding (status quo),
>   but not allowed to make the actual dtsi match the binding documentation
>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@pengutronix.de/
>   and
>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210924091439.2561931-5-andreas@kemnade.info/
> 
> compatible = "A", "B" in the binding definition: is not allowed ("I asked to remove
>    half-compatible" (= removing B))

No, half compatible is the A in such case.

> 
> having mismatch between binding definition and devicetree causes dtbs_check errors
>    -> also not nice.
> 
> I rather drop this patch and learn to live with dtbs_check errors
> for this one since I have no idea how to proceed. All roads are blocked.
> This all causes too much churn.

And why you cannot implement what I asked for?

Best regards,
Krzysztof