linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: media: Add bindings for raspberrypi,rp1-cfe

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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:02:24 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Naushir Patuck <naush@...pberrypi.com>
Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>,
 linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@...asonboard.com>,
 Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
 Raspberry Pi Kernel Maintenance <kernel-list@...pberrypi.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
 Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: media: Add bindings for
 raspberrypi,rp1-cfe

On 19/03/2024 13:57, Naushir Patuck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> See writing bindings. Compatibles should be SoC specific. In some cases
>>>> generic fallbacks make sense, in some note. But don't just choose
>>>> "generic fallback" because you want. Provide rationale.
>>>
>>> If the compatible is SoC specific, I suppose "raspberrypi,rp1-cfe"
>>> would be the correct string.
>>
>> Sure, but then please think what if rp1 is on Rpi6, called exactly the
>> same (rp1), with some minor differences? Could it be?
> 
> Yes, this is definitely possible.  In such cases, I would expect the
> hardware to have a version register that would be queried by the
> driver to adjust for minor differences, and the compatible string
> remains the same.  Does that seem reasonable?

The "would expect" is concerning. The register(s) must be there already,
with proper value.

Best regards,
Krzysztof