linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: mt6360-tcpc: Drop interrupt-names

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 09:48:23 +0100
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Cc: chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com, linux@...ck-us.net,
 heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, cy_huang@...htek.com,
 linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: mt6360-tcpc: Drop
 interrupt-names

Il 23/01/24 18:14, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:32:30AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 19/01/24 17:32, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:41:04AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>> This IP has only one interrupt, hence interrupt-names is not necessary
>>>> to have.
>>>> Since there is no user yet, simply remove interrupt-names.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit confused chief. Patch 2 in this series removes a user of this
>>> property from a driver, so can you explain how this statement is true?
>>>
>>> Maybe I need to drink a few cans of Monster and revisit this patchset?
>>>
>>
>> What I mean with "there is no user" is that there's no device tree with any
>> mt6360-tcpc node upstream yet, so there is no meaningful ABI breakage.
>> Different story would be if there was a device tree using this already, in
>> which case, you can make a required property optional but not remove it.
> 
> Not every devicetree lives within the kernel.. If the driver is using
> it, I'm not inclined to agree that it should be removed.

I get the point, but as far as I remember, it's not the first time that this
kind of change is upstreamed.

I'm fine with keeping things as they are but, since my intention is to actually
introduce an actual user of this binding upstream, and that actually depends on
if this change is accepted or not (as I have to know whether I can omit adding
the interrupt-names property or not)....

...may I ask for more feedback/opinions from Rob and/or Krzk?

Thanks,
Angelo