linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] spi: dt-bindings: add Siflower Quad SPI controller

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]

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:12:59 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Qingfang Deng <dqfext@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Qingfang Deng <qingfang.deng@...lower.com.cn>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] spi: dt-bindings: add Siflower Quad SPI
 controller

On 02/04/2024 14:22, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 06:42:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 29/03/2024 02:51, Qingfang Deng wrote:
> 
>>> Add YAML devicetree bindings for Siflower Quad SPI controller.
> 
>> Describe the hardware. What is this Siflower?
> 
> That seems like a perfectly adequate description - ${VENDOR} ${FUNCTION}
> is normal enough and Quad SPI is a well known standard.  We don't need a
> marketing spiel for whatever IP version is currently supported.

What we are missing here is the final product, so for example the SoC.
Is the company making exactly one and only one Quad SPI? I provided more
explanation what is missing further in the quoted email and in follow up
email/discussion.

Best regards,
Krzysztof