linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: usb: typec-tcpci: add tcpci compatible binding

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:08:46 +0100
From: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	linux@...ck-us.net, heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: usb: typec-tcpci: add tcpci compatible
 binding

On 24-02-07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 10:05, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > On 24-02-06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2024 15:52, Marco Felsch wrote:
> >>> On 24-02-06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 05/02/2024 17:43, Marco Felsch wrote:
> >>>>> This binding descripes the generic TCPCI specification [1]. So add the

..

> > Don't get me wrong, I get your point. In the end I don't care and can
> > copy'n'paste the whole file and change the compatible to the OnSemi
> > device or I can add the dedicated OnSemi compatible to this file. But I
> > don't wanted to add an 2nd specific compatible while the device already
> > supports the generic one but via i2c_device_id.name. Therefore I aligned
> > the i2c_device_id with the of_device_id.
> 
> You can add generic compatible used as fallback. That's pretty common
> practice.

Okay. To bring this discussion to an end, I will add the generic
compatible as fallback :)

Thanks,
  Marco

> 
> > 
> >>>> Are all details expected to follow spec, without need of quirks?
> >>>
> >>> Please see above, I hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Sorry, doesn't. You still speak about driver and how it can bind to
> >> something. I did not ask about this at all.
> >>
> >> To be clear:
> >> WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LINUX DRIVER.
> > 
> > I KNOW
> > 
> >> We talk about hardware and how it is represented in Devicetree,
> >> including its supplies, pins, GPIOs and any ideas hardware engineers
> >> like to bring.
> 
> Then terms "driver" and "binding" (or matching) do not fit here as
> arguments whether specific compatible should be there or not. There is
> guideline for that: writing bindings, which exactly, 100% covers this
> thing here.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
>