linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

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: <d947cb15-aafc-487e-8bbd-54d786683470@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:21:27 -0400
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
 Richard Alpe <richard@...42.se>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>,
 Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of
 fsl,layerscape-sfp

On 3/19/24 13:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> >> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > Additionally, should
>> >> > they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
>> >> > with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
>> >> > is for the t1023-sfp.
>> >> 
>> >> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.
>> > 
>> > Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
>> > updating the various dts files.
>> 
>> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable,
>> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I
>> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for
>> compatibility purposes.
> 
> Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right
> though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you
> want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works
> with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the
> rationale in the commit message.

It doesn't really matter what the schema has as long as the driver supports
existing device trees.

--Sean