linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Add MSM8926 and Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 10.1 LTE

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: <7c69e654-fe57-ad5c-9b41-15aaeaa73102@postmarketos.org>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 18:41:25 +0100
From:   Stefan Hansson <newbyte@...tmarketos.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.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>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        soc@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        matti.lehtimaki@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Add MSM8926 and Samsung
 Galaxy Tab 4 10.1 LTE



On 2023-01-23 18:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/01/2023 18:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 22/01/2023 15:47, Stefan Hansson wrote:
>>> MSM8926 (also known as Snapdragon 400) is very similar to MSM8226 and
>>> APQ8026 with the primary difference being that it features an LTE modem
>>> unlike the former two which feature a 3G modem and a GPS-only modem,
>>> respectively.
>>>
>>> This also documents Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 10.1 LTE (samsung,matisselte)
>>> which is a tablet by Samsung based on the MSM8926 SoC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hansson <newbyte@...tmarketos.org>
>>> ---
>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>> index 47913a8e3eea..7a0b2088ead9 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ description: |
>>>           mdm9615
>>>           msm8226
>>>           msm8916
>>> +        msm8926
>>>           msm8953
>>>           msm8956
>>>           msm8974
>>> @@ -219,6 +220,11 @@ properties:
>>>             - const: qcom,msm8916-v1-qrd/9-v1
>>>             - const: qcom,msm8916
>>>   
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - enum:
>>> +              - samsung,matisselte
>>
>> 1. matisse is the code name, lte is version/suffix. I don't think they
>> should be together, because then it looks like "matisselte" is a name.
>> It actually sounds like one word.
> 
> Update: there is already matisse-wifi, so please follow the same naming
> convention. Version suffix should be separated with hyphen.
> 

I'm aware, and I've been in contact with the matisse-wifi dts author who 
told me that he went with this name because you suggested it (he had 
originally sent it in as matissewifi). However I don't think diverging 
from how the rest of the community refers to it is a good idea. 
Codenames often sound nonsensical, but they have effectively become the 
de-facto universal identifier for devices in the community and so I 
think retaining that consistency is more beneficial than making it sound 
nice.

Additionally, while matisse-wifi has the hyphen added before the suffix, 
many other Samsung devices do not (klte, jackpotlte, s3ve3g). As such, I 
think the name matisse-wifi is the outlier here rather than matisselte 
(but yes, I do understand that they are more related to each other than 
the other devices mentioned).

Does that sound sensible?

>>
>> 2. You base on other SoC but you do not include its compatibles. Why? Is
>> it intended? None of the properties applicable to other SoC will match
>> here, thus I actually wonder if you run dtbs_check...

Sorry, I forgot about running dtbs_check. However, I'm not sure I 
understand the question. What do you mean by that I don't include its 
compatibles?

I ran `$ make dtbs_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=qcom.yaml` locally just now, 
and it only gave me errors from the qcom-msm8974pro-oneplus-bacon dtb. 
Maybe I'm running it wrong?

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Thanks for the review,
Stefan Hansson