linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 16/39] spi: dt-bindings: atmel,at91rm9200-spi: remove 9x60 compatible from list

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: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:38:16 +0000
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To: Varshini.Rajendran@...rochip.com, broonie@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
 claudiu.beznea@...on.dev, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/39] spi: dt-bindings: atmel,at91rm9200-spi: remove
 9x60 compatible from list



On 2/28/24 09:28, Varshini.Rajendran@...rochip.com wrote:
> Hi Tudor,
> 
> On 26/02/24 2:39 pm, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 23.02.2024 19:26, Varshini Rajendran wrote:
>>> Remove microchip,sam9x60-spi compatible from the list as the driver used
>>> has the compatible atmel,at91rm9200-spi and sam9x60 devices also use the
>>> same compatible as fallback. So removing the microchip,sam9x60-spi
>>> compatible from the list since it is not needed.
>>>
>>
>> I find this wrong. I though we shall add compatibles for each SoC. Are
>> the registers and fields the same for the SPI IPs in these 2 SoCs? Even
>> if they are the same, are you sure the IPs are integrated in the same way?
> 
> Which two SoCs are you referring to ?
> I am not removing the device specific compatible. I am only removing the 
> additional fallback compatible.
> 

ah, I read it wrong, sorry
> As in,
> 
> compatible = "microchip,sam9x7-spi", "atmel,at91rm9200-spi";
> 
> instead of,
> 
> compatible = "microchip,sam9x7-spi", "microchip,sam9x60-spi", 
> "atmel,at91rm9200-spi";
> 
> for the sam9x7 devices.
> 
> Hope this is clear. If I have it wrong please let me know.

it's clear now, thanks.

I see in the driver that microchip,sam9x60-spi compatible is not yet
used, thus removing the fallback to "microchip,sam9x60-spi" brings no
functional change. Would have made a difference if sam9x60-spi
implemented additional support that sam9x7-spi could have used as a
fallback. If you think that sam9x7-spi will not fallback to sam9x60-spi
in the future then:

Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>

> 
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Varshini Rajendran <varshini.rajendran@...rochip.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> - Elaborated the explanation in the commit message to justify the patch
>>> ---
>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml | 1 -
>>>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml
>>> index 58367587bfbc..32e7c14033c2 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml
>>> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ properties:
>>>             - const: atmel,at91rm9200-spi
>>>         - items:
>>>             - const: microchip,sam9x7-spi
>>> -          - const: microchip,sam9x60-spi
>>>             - const: atmel,at91rm9200-spi
>>>
>>>     reg:
>