linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] arm: marvell: Fix maxium->maxim typo for brownstone dts

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: <7336acfc-eea8-472c-8b04-c04b4c401fe8@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2023 01:43:08 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Duje Mihanović <duje.mihanovic@...le.hr>
Cc:     Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] arm: marvell: Fix maxium->maxim typo for
 brownstone dts

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:09:30PM +0200, Duje Mihanović wrote:
> Fix an obvious spelling error in the PMIC compatible in the MMP2
> Brownstone DTS file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Duje Mihanović <duje.mihanovic@...le.hr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
> index 04f1ae1382e7..bc64348b8218 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/marvell/mmp2-brownstone.dts
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ &uart3 {
>  &twsi1 {
>  	status = "okay";
>  	pmic: max8925@3c {
> -		compatible = "maxium,max8925";
> +		compatible = "maxim,max8925";

Maybe a dumb question. Does I2C core still ignore the vendor part? Its
a long time since i did anything with i2c, but i thought for
historical reasons it ignore the vendor?

If this is still true, then yes, this is just a spelling
error. However, if the vendor is being used to match device to driver,
this is more than a spelling issue, and should be directed to stable.

     Andrew