linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] wifi: wilc1000: fix reset line assert/deassert polarity

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: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:07:58 +0200
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com,  alexis.lothore@...tlin.com,
  davidm@...uge.net,  linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
  claudiu.beznea@...on.dev,  thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] wifi: wilc1000: fix reset line assert/deassert
 polarity

Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> writes:

>> > So if I'm understanding the situation correctly Microchip's porting
>> > guide[1] doesn't match with kernel.org documentation[2]? I'm not the
>> > expert here but from my point of view the issue is clear: the code needs
>> > to follow kernel.org documentation[2], not external documentation.
>> 
>> My point of view would definitely be that drivers in the mainline kernel
>> absolutely should respect the ABI defined in the dt-binding. What a vendor
>> decides to do in their own tree I suppose is their problem, but I would
>> advocate that vendor kernels would also respect the ABI from mainline.
>> 
>> Looking a bit more closely at the porting guide, it contains other
>> properties that are not present in the dt-binding - undocumented
>> compatibles and a different enable gpio property for example.
>> I guess it (and the vendor version of the driver) never got updated when
>> wilc1000 supported landed in mainline?
>> 
>> > I'll add devicetree list so hopefully people there can comment also,
>> > full patch available in [3].
>> > 
>> > Alexis, if there are no more comments I'm in favor submitting the revert
>> > you mentioned.
>> 
>> From a dt-bindings point of view, the aforementioned revert seems
>> correct and would be
>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>
> Maybe an R-b is more suitable here, too used to acking trivial patches
> that are dt related..

On the contrary, I think Acked-by is the right thing here and makes it
easier for Alexis and me. Thanks!

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches