linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: fix DEBIX binding

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: <2d9b2341-84ca-d152-8a42-90b815c66125@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 11:37:15 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
        Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        shawnguo@...nel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
        linux-imx@....com, marex@...x.de, frieder.schrempf@...tron.de
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: fix DEBIX binding

On 05/07/2023 11:28, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> +        items:
>>> +          - enum:
>>> +              - polyhex,imx8mp-debix-model-a        # Polyhex Debix Model A Board
>>> +          - const: polyhex,imx8mp-debix             # Polyhex Debix boards
>>
>> Same comments as for patch #2. I think this should be rather deprecated
>> - not a good pattern.
> 
> The middle compatible was my suggestion, because there's also the Debix Model
> B Standard and Model B SE, which is the same board, but different SoC variant:
> 
>  Model A:          Commercial Temperature Grade
>  Model B Standard: Industrial Temperature Grade
>  Model B SE:       Industrial Temperature Grate, but i.MX8MP Lite
>                    (No Neural/Video/Image accelerators).
> 
> As everything outside the SoC is the same, I wanted a generic board
> compatible that bootloaders can match against. The SoMs should probably
> not reuse it, but I think it should be kept (perhaps renamed?) for the
> SBCs that don't utilize the Debix SoM.

The order of compatibles in patch two does not really look correct,
although it is accepted in some cases (e.g. Renesas). But anyway "Debix"
sounds like a vendor - they even have website - so compatible for all
boards seems too generic. This should be compatible for one specific
board. I understand that one board can have different SoMs (it is
common, just look at Toradex or Variscite), but it does not mean that
board should be unspecific.

Best regards,
Krzysztof