linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: i3c: svc: add compatible string i3c: silvaco,i3c-target-v1

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, 17 Jan 2024 07:45:12 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>, robh@...nel.org,
 alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, conor.culhane@...vaco.com,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev, jirislaby@...nel.org,
 joe@...ches.com, linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
 miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, zbigniew.lukwinski@...ux.intel.com,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: i3c: svc: add compatible string i3c:
 silvaco,i3c-target-v1

On 16/01/2024 22:31, Frank Li wrote:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it okay for 'silvaco,i3c-target-imx93'?
>>>>
>>>> No, because imx93 is product of NXP, not Silvaco.
>>>>
>>>> You need regular SoC-block compatibles, just like we have for all other
>>>> snps, dwc and cdns.
>>>
>>> "nxp,imx93-svc-i3c-target" ? 
>>
>> Could be, now please point me to patch adding such code to DTS. I would
>> like to see the real use case for it.
> 
> This part have not sent to review yet. basically in imx93evk.dts add
> 
> &i3c1 { 
> 	compatible = "silvaco,i3c-target-v1";
>         pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";                                
>         pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i3c1>;                                       
>         pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i3c1>;                                       
>         status = "okay"
> }

Overriding compatible is not desired. It also supports here the
statement that this is the same hardware.

Best regards,
Krzysztof