linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] memory: brcmstb_dpfe: introduce version-specific compatible strings

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: <7d30acd6-1f00-47d1-b7ed-05e7bdab119c@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 18:33:53 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
        Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Device Tree Mailing List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] memory: brcmstb_dpfe: introduce version-specific
 compatible strings

On 06/12/2023 17:19, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/6/2023 3:09 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 19:47, Markus Mayer wrote:
>>> Introduce compatible strings brcm,dpfe-cpu-v1 through brcm,dpfe-cpu-v3
>>> to the Broadcom DPFE driver.
>>
>> No, why?
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/memory/brcmstb_dpfe.c | 6 ++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/brcmstb_dpfe.c b/drivers/memory/brcmstb_dpfe.c
>>> index a7ab3d377206..66876b409e59 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/memory/brcmstb_dpfe.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/brcmstb_dpfe.c
>>> @@ -924,6 +924,12 @@ static const struct of_device_id brcmstb_dpfe_of_match[] = {
>>>   	{ .compatible = "brcm,bcm7271-dpfe-cpu", .data = &dpfe_api_old_v2 },
>>>   	{ .compatible = "brcm,bcm7278-dpfe-cpu", .data = &dpfe_api_old_v2 },
>>>   	{ .compatible = "brcm,bcm7211-dpfe-cpu", .data = &dpfe_api_new_v2 },
>>> +
>>> +	/* Match specific DCPU versions */
>>> +	{ .compatible = "brcm,dpfe-cpu-v1", .data = &dpfe_api_old_v2 },
>>> +	{ .compatible = "brcm,dpfe-cpu-v2", .data = &dpfe_api_new_v2 },
>>> +	{ .compatible = "brcm,dpfe-cpu-v3", .data = &dpfe_api_v3 },
>>
>> Pointless change.
> 
> Is it possible to ask you as a maintainer to stop having those knee jerk 
> reactions and try to understand things a bit better, or simply request a 
> better explanation from the submitter?

I asked: "Why?". None of the commits explain the rationale behind the
change. None of them say why such change is needed. They all repeat what
the patch is doing, which is pretty easy to see from the diff. The
commit must answer the trickiest question: why are we doing this?

Best regards,
Krzysztof