linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] dt-bindings: nvmem: convert base example to use "nvmem-layout" node

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:59:02 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] dt-bindings: nvmem: convert base example to use
 "nvmem-layout" node

Hi Rafał,

zajec5@...il.com wrote on Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:51:45 +0100:

> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> 
> With support for "fixed-layout" binding we can use now "nvmem-layout"
> even for fixed NVMEM cells. Use that in the base example as it should be
> preferred over placing cells directly in the device node.
> 
> New and other bindings should follow as old binding will get deprecated
> at some point.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml      | 42 +++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml
> index 732162e9d13e..c77be1c20e47 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/nvmem.yaml
> @@ -67,24 +67,30 @@ examples:
>  
>            /* ... */
>  
> -          /* Data cells */
> -          tsens_calibration: calib@404 {
> -              reg = <0x404 0x10>;
> -          };
> -
> -          tsens_calibration_bckp: calib_bckp@504 {
> -              reg = <0x504 0x11>;
> -              bits = <6 128>;
> -          };
> -
> -          pvs_version: pvs-version@6 {
> -              reg = <0x6 0x2>;
> -              bits = <7 2>;
> -          };
> -
> -          speed_bin: speed-bin@c{
> -              reg = <0xc 0x1>;
> -              bits = <2 3>;
> +          nvmem-layout {

I believe we should not introduce "intermediate state" bindings when
this is not strictly required, in order to avoid confusion with what is
backward and what is transitory. So I would expect this to only apply
after the switch to:

	nvmem-layout@xxx {
		reg = <xxx>;

I don't care who will take care of it, but I think it would be better
to have everything in one series.

Other than the "order" problematic which I think is important here, I
agree with this series.

> +              compatible = "fixed-layout";
> +              #address-cells = <1>;
> +              #size-cells = <1>;
> +
> +              /* Data cells */
> +              tsens_calibration: calib@404 {
> +                  reg = <0x404 0x10>;
> +              };
> +
> +              tsens_calibration_bckp: calib_bckp@504 {
> +                  reg = <0x504 0x11>;
> +                  bits = <6 128>;
> +              };
> +
> +              pvs_version: pvs-version@6 {
> +                  reg = <0x6 0x2>;
> +                  bits = <7 2>;
> +              };
> +
> +              speed_bin: speed-bin@c{
> +                  reg = <0xc 0x1>;
> +                  bits = <2 3>;
> +              };
>            };
>        };
>  


Thanks,
Miquèl