linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/16] dt-bindings: spi: Add bcmbca-hsspi controller support

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: <f4356898-de35-9728-5395-baecb07c843f@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 08:41:52 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     William Zhang <william.zhang@...adcom.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Linux SPI List <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Cc:     anand.gore@...adcom.com, tomer.yacoby@...adcom.com,
        dan.beygelman@...adcom.com, joel.peshkin@...adcom.com,
        jonas.gorski@...il.com, kursad.oney@...adcom.com, dregan@...l.com,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] dt-bindings: spi: Add bcmbca-hsspi controller
 support

On 12/01/2023 20:50, William Zhang wrote:
>>> No as we are adding chip model specific info here.  The existing driver
>>> spi-bcm63xx-hsspi.c only binds to brcm,bcm6328-hsspi. This driver
>>> supports all the chips with rev1.0 controller so I am using this 6328
>>> string for other chips with v1.0 in the dts patch, which is not ideal.
>>
>> Why? This is perfectly ideal and usual case. Why changing it?
>>
>>> Now I have to add more compatible to this driver and for each new chip
>>> with 1.0 in the future if any.
>>
>> Why you cannot use compatibility with older chipset?
>>
> IMHO it is really confusing that we have all the SoCs but have to bind 
> to an antique SoC's spi controller compatible and people may think it is 
> a mistake or typo when they don't know they are actually the same.

I am sorry, this is ridiculous argument. It's like saying - people
cannot understand what they are reading, therefore we need to present
them obfuscated information so they will think something else than their
minds created...

> I 
> know there are usage like that but when we have clear knowledge of the 
> IP block with rev info, I think it is much better to have a precise SoC 

No, it's not particularly better and you were questioning it just before...

> model number and a general revision info in the compatible. As you know 
> they are many usage of IP rev info in the compatible too. 
> brcm,bcm6328-hsspi will stay so it does not break any existing dts 
> reference to that.

Anyway your ship sailed - you already have bindings using SoC  versions...

> 
> Anyway if you still does not like this idea, I will drop the rev info 
> and you have it your way.

Best regards,
Krzysztof