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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 17:16:53 +0200
From:   Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...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,
        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 23-07-05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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 SoM may come also in a 'Standard' and 'SE' edition.

> 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.

I reused the "polyhex,imx8mp-debix" compatible since we already have a
user [1] and there are no differences.

I can drop it for the SoM case but for the SBC case I can't since this
would break current users [1].

Regards,
  Marco

[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/barebox/v2023.07.1/source/arch/arm/boards/polyhex-debix/board.c#L38