linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: mfd: add entry for Marvell 88PM886 PMIC

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: <CZ8ATPJTOA3U.2QJSJY50EX2YH@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 16:10:10 +0100
From: "Karel Balej" <karelb@...li.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
To: "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 "Lee Jones" <lee@...nel.org>, "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>, "Mark
 Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>, <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
 <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Duje Mihanović <duje.mihanovic@...le.hr>,
 <~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht>, <phone-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: mfd: add entry for Marvell
 88PM886 PMIC

Rob Herring, 2024-02-15T08:20:52-06:00:
> >  .../bindings/mfd/marvell,88pm88x.yaml         | 74 +++++++++++++++++++
>
> Filename should match the compatible.
>
> In general, drop the 'x' wildcard.

By "in general", do you mean for the drivers code also?

As I have mentioned in the commit message for the driver, the other
device is very similar and if the support for it was ever to be added
(which I personally currently have no interest in), I believe it would
make sense to extend this driver. Is it then still prefered to call it
all just 88pm886 now?

> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    const: marvell,88pm886-a1

So the file should be called marvell,88pm886-a1.yaml, correct? Again, is
it prefered to call it like this even if the other revision could
eventually be added (again, I am not interested in that right now
personally)? I mean, if I was implementing support for both revisions
right now, it would make sense to name it just marvell,88pm886.yaml, no?

Thank you, kind regards,
K. B.