linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: Convert bridge binding to yaml

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: <f3aeff02-2560-46e7-a712-1f8d323f43a4@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 09:16:33 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, monstr@...str.eu, michal.simek@...inx.com,
 git@...inx.com, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>,
 Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
 "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
 <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, kishore Manne <nava.kishore.manne@....com>,
 "open list:FPGA MANAGER FRAMEWORK" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: Convert bridge binding to yaml

On 09/01/2024 09:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>>> +  $nodename:
>>>>>>> +    pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more
>>>>>> than one bridge on given system?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yilun: Any comment on this?
>>>>
>>>> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0
>>>> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me.
>>>
>>> So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a
>>> requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern.
>>
>> I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on 
>> the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is 
>> optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name.
>> That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without 
>> reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression.
> 
> If we allow node name without unit address, thus not being part of any
> bus, then the only question is whether it is possible to have system
> with more than two FPGA bridges. If the answer is "yes", which I think
> is the case, then the pattern should already allow it:
> 
> (@[0-9a-f]+|-[0-9]+)?

Or better go with what I used recently for narrowed choices:

(@.*|-([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]+))?

Best regards,
Krzysztof