linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 5/6] dt-bindings: media: wave5: add yaml devicetree bindings

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]

Message-ID: <4b88a31a-bbff-21b5-a53d-19a3e66e2f3e@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2023 09:53:09 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Sebastian Fricke <sebastian.fricke@...labora.com>
Cc:     linux-media@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        kernel@...labora.com, bob.beckett@...labora.com,
        hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl, nicolas.dufresne@...labora.com,
        nas.chung@...psnmedia.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 5/6] dt-bindings: media: wave5: add yaml devicetree
 bindings

On 04/09/2023 08:25, Sebastian Fricke wrote:

>>> +  sram:
>>
>> Missing vendor prefix.
> 
> After some discussion with the the manufacturer of this CODEC chip, the SRAM
> is not fixed to the CODEC chip but instead part of the SoC, thus the
> vendor can vary. It sounds like the policy is to use the vendor prefix
> of the SoC, that was used for upstreaming. But that policy sounds a bit
> like a potential for future confusion to me, so I wanted to ask what you
> would like to see. The SoC we develop on is from TI and the CODEC chip is from
> C&M, so I could either call it: `ti,sram` or `cnm,sram`

I meant vendor prefix of this device. It does not matter what SoC is
that, however it turns out it is already a generic property, so no
vendor prefix is needed if you use the same property - phandle points to
a node which is a sram.yaml.


Best regards,
Krzysztof