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]
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 16:27:18 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: hwmon: add ti,ina238

On 25/10/2023 16:23, Richard Leitner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 04:18:31PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/10/2023 16:11, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 04:07:31PM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:34:12AM +0000, Richard Leitner wrote:
>>>>>> The ina238 driver is available since 2021 but lacks a dt-bindings file.
>>>>>> Therefore add the missing file now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seemingly it is documented in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,ina2xx.yaml
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback. True. So is it fine if it's left there or
>>>> should it be removed from ti,ina2xxx.yml as this is a separate driver
>>>> with different properties?
>>>
>>> Merging them would seem like the most straightforward thing to do, no?
>>
>> Sorry folks, I don't quite get what do you want to merge or move and
>> why. Drivers are not related to bindings. The point is the compatible is
>> already documented, so is anything wrong with existing documentation?
> 
> ina238 is a separate driver which doesn't evaluate the same properties as
> the ina2xx driver. So I thought it would be reasonable to split those
> bindings and therefore reflect the drivers capabilities.

I do not see different properties in the bindings, so what do you mean
that it evaluates something else?

Anyway, whatever driver does is rarely good argument for change in
bindings, because we focus here on the hardware, not on one, chosen OS
implementation.

> 
> If it's fine if there are additional properties in the dt-bindings which

Where are they? Or rather which additional properties?

> are not evaluated by the driver then it's of course fine with me to just
> add the ina327 compatible in ina2xx.yaml.

Depends. What driver does, might not matter in some cases. What matters
is if these properties are applicable to this hardware.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists