linux-kernel - Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] spi: cadence: Add MRVL overlay bindings documentation for Cadence XSPI

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: <fb5a7670-0a52-4f15-8029-092ae0abe98c@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:58:53 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Witold Sadowski <wsadowski@...vell.com>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
 "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>, "robh@...nel.org"
 <robh@...nel.org>,
 "krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 "conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 "pthombar@...ence.com" <pthombar@...ence.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] spi: cadence: Add MRVL overlay
 bindings documentation for Cadence XSPI

On 30/04/2024 00:59, Witold Sadowski wrote:
> 
>>
>> Confusing wording aside, using the same generic compatible for different
>> SoCs is what I trying to avoid. I don't mind there being a fallback
>> compatible that's generic, but I want to see specific compatibles here for
>> the individual SoCs.
>>
>> If you did actually mean that only the packaging is different between the
>> devices, then I don't think you need specific compatibles for each
>> different package, but you should have one for the SoC itself IMO.
> 
> We can have SoC A, B with common xSPI block, and both of them can share
> Same dtb node with compatible property "marvell,cn10k,xspi-nor" for
> example. I don't think it will be beneficial to have different compatible
> name for each different SoC, for example "marvell,t98,xspi-nor", if all
> other parts will be the same. Or am I not correct?

Please see writing bindings (or any presentation for DTS and bindings):
you are expected to have SoC specific compatibles for every block in the
SoC. There are many examples in recent bindings, so take a look there.

Best regards,
Krzysztof