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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <38aaf71a-511d-4e63-9014-07f591d8250b@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:12:05 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Naushir Patuck <naush@...pberrypi.com>,
 Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
Cc: 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 20/03/2024 09:50, Naushir Patuck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm still wondering about the RP1 part there in the compatible
>>>> string. Is it necessary? The CFE is located in the RP1 co-processor, but
>>>> is that relevant?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a versioning for the whole RP1 chip? Maybe it's going to the
>>>> wrong direction if we use the board/SoC for this compatible name, as
>>>> it's actually the RP1 where the CFE is located in, not the SoC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really know the conversion required to answer this one.
>>> Logically CFE is on RP1, so it makes sense to me to have "rp1" in the
>>> string, but I will follow the judgment of the maintainers.
>>
>> Well, my thinking here was that if we have a register from which to read
>> the version, and Raspberry Pi would create a new co-processor, RP2, with
>> the same CFE. Would we then have "raspberrypi,rp1-cfe" and
>> "raspberrypi,rp2-cfe", even if there are no changes? 

That would follow guidelines as expressed in writing bindings.

>>Or would a plain
>> "raspberrypi,cfe" do for both?
>>
>> In other words, if we don't need the "rp1" for versioning purposes,
>> should it then be dropped?
> 
> I agree with the above, you've convinced me that "raspberrypi,cfe"
> might be the more appropriate string, or a convincing argument for
> that to be a fallback string.

Just follow the guidelines. If you come up with generic compatible
alone, you could run to the same problems everyone is running.

Best regards,
Krzysztof