linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: iio: adc: ad7192: Add properties

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: <5bc2bd1e-16a8-4de4-bec6-9391addacc89@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:28:33 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
 Alisa-Dariana Roman <alisadariana@...il.com>
Cc: Alisa-Dariana Roman <alisa.roman@...log.com>,
 Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Alexandru Tachici <alexandru.tachici@...log.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Ceclan Dumitru <dumitru.ceclan@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: iio: adc: ad7192: Add properties

On 02/02/2024 23:20, David Lechner wrote:
>>>
>>> And this should be input clock.
>>>
>>>> +    type: boolean
>>>> +
>>>> +  adi,int-clock-output-enable:
>>>> +    description: |
>>>> +      Internal 4.92 MHz clock available on MCLK2 pin.
>>>> +    type: boolean
>>>
>>> This should be clock-cells and clock provider.
>>>
>>> Unless you are just documenting already used interface which you do not
>>> want to break...
> 
> This property is already used in the mainline Linux driver, so sounds
> like the "don't want to break it" case. But it would make sense to
> deprecate this property and use standard clock provider bindings
> instead.

One could think like that, but what type of process would it create?
Send driver changes WITHOUT binding, then document whatever crap you
have saying "Linux already supports it!".

Whenever such argument is used, I am repeating the same.

Let's be more clear: NAK if this is clock provider and the only argument
is that someone sneaked undocumented interface bypassing review.



Best regards,
Krzysztof