linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] dt-bindings: memory-controller: st,stm32: add 'power-domains' property

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: <52be1d88-51a1-4ec7-8aaf-6046f5a469f4@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:57:16 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@...s.st.com>,
 Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at, vigneshr@...com,
 robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay@...s.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] dt-bindings: memory-controller: st,stm32: add
 'power-domains' property

On 13/02/2024 11:57, Christophe Kerello wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/12/24 19:33, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 06:48:12PM +0100, Christophe Kerello wrote:
>>> From: Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay@...s.st.com>
>>>
>>> On STM32MP25 SOC, STM32 FMC2 memory controller is in a power domain.
>>> Allow a single 'power-domains' entry for STM32 FMC2.
>>
>> This should be squashed with patch 1, since they both modify the same
>> file and this power-domain is part of the addition of mp25 support.
> 
> Hi Conor,
> 
> Ok, I will squash this patch with patch 1.
> 
>>
>> If the mp1 doesn't have power domains, shouldn't you constrain the
>> property to mp25 only?
>>
> 
> As this property is optional, I do not see the need to constrain the
> property to MP25 only, but if you think that it should be the case, I
> will do it.

The question is: is this property valid for the old/existing variant?

Best regards,
Krzysztof