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: <20240405083137.2291ea9d@aktux>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:31:37 +0200
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, lee@...nel.org,
 robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mfd: Add ROHM BD71879

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:01:25 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:

> > Yes. If there are reasons against, please briefly mention them in commit
> > msg.  
> 
> I would like to understand the rationale for allowing:
> compatible = "rohm,bd71879", "rohm,bd71828".
> 
> Is the intention to:
> 1) allow boards which tell the software that "the hardware may be 
> bd71828 or bd71879", or
> 2) to tell a binding reader that these ICs are likely to be usable as 
> replacements to each others?
> (Or, is there some other rationale beyond these?)

As far as I understand the second compatible can be a fallback for
software which does not know the bd71879 (remember the devicetree is
not only for linux). Especially if that software does not use the full
functionality of the device, like drivers in bootloaders do. E.g.
mmc drivers in bootloaders might not use high speed modes at all, so
differences in them do not matter.

Regards,
Andreas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ