linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 11/21] ARM: dts: aspeed: yosemite4: Add eeprom for yosemite4 use

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: <1823c7e3fd460b64c5bab3c1c6623a0a63e073d6.camel@codeconstruct.com.au>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 16:15:39 +1030
From: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...econstruct.com.au>
To: Delphine CC Chiu <Delphine_CC_Chiu@...ynn.com>, patrick@...cx.xyz, Rob
 Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/21] ARM: dts: aspeed: yosemite4: Add eeprom for
 yosemite4 use

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 16:41 +0800, Delphine CC Chiu wrote:
> Add eeprom for yosemite4 use
> 
> Signed-off-by: Delphine CC Chiu <Delphine_CC_Chiu@...ynn.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yosemite4.dts | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yosemite4.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yosemite4.dts
> index e8d7eb7ff568..f00df378a371 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yosemite4.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yosemite4.dts
> @@ -932,7 +932,7 @@ temperature-sensor@4b {
>  	};
>  
>  	eeprom@54 {
> -		compatible = "atmel,24c256";
> +		compatible = "atmel,24c128";

This is changing an existing eeprom, not adding a new one - contrary to
the commit message. It probably should be in a separate patch?
Presumably this is also motivated by the change in the schematics? Some
explanation would be helpful.

I'm half wondering whether it would have been easier to add a separate
DTS for the new version of the schematic rather than make all these
piecemeal changes.

Andrew