linux-kernel - Re: [DMARC error][DKIM error] [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: add support for A4 based Amlogic BA400

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: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 07:58:59 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@...ogic.com>,
 Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@...utedevices.com>,
 Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay <devnull+xianwei.zhao.amlogic.com@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
 Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
 Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [DMARC error][DKIM error] [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: add support for
 A4 based Amlogic BA400

On 14/03/2024 06:19, Xianwei Zhao wrote:
>>> +
>>> +             apb@...00000 {
>>> +                     compatible = "simple-bus";
>>> +                     reg = <0x0 0xfe000000 0x0 0x480000>;
>>> +                     #address-cells = <2>;
>>> +                     #size-cells = <2>;
>>> +                     ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0xfe000000 0x0 0x480000>;
>>> +
>>> +                     uart_b: serial@...00 {
>>> +                             compatible = "amlogic,meson-s4-uart",
>>
>> If I'm not wrong, you need to create dt-binding alias for meson-a4-uart
>> and use it as 3rd compatible string.
>>
> On UART module, A4 and A5 SoCs exactly the same as S4. There's no 
> difference.

That's not really the point. You are supposed to always provide SoC
specific compatible in front of the fallback. See writing bindings document.


Best regards,
Krzysztof