linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: remove redundant company name

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, 24 Jan 2024 12:08:03 -0500
From: Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@...ovil.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
 kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com, linux-imx@....com,
 leoyang.li@....com, hvilleneuve@...onoff.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 andy.shevchenko@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: remove redundant company
 name

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 18:00:00 +0100
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:

> On 24/01/2024 17:46, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> > From: Hugo Villeneuve <hvilleneuve@...onoff.com>
> > 
> > Company name in compatible description appears twice, which is not really
> > helpful, so remove it from product name.
> 
> It's just a string. There is no bug, at least you did not describe where
> the bug is.

Hi Krzysztof,
in fact the fix is based on comments you made in a
review for another board that I submitted:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/6035c4cc-afe1-456d-a4d0-16992da09a2e@linaro.org/

------------------
Company name appears twice, which is not really helpful. What's the true
name? Gateway EVK? Then keep only this.
-----------------

> This has probably little impact on user-space, but there could be such
> which actually reads compatibles and depends on them. Or bootloader or
> whatever. Therefore to me such cosmetic change of correct compatible is
> not worth ABI impact.

Yes, normally you would be right, but in this specific case, the board
is a prototype developped by my company and we are still at the
prototype stage, so there is zero ABI impact.

Maybe I can add this to the cover letter if you want me to submit a V3.

Hugo Villeneuve