linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] dt-bindings: clock: mobileye,eyeq5-clk: drop bindings

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]

Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 17:07:39 +0200
From: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>
To: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, "Rob Herring"
 <robh@...nel.org>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 "Michael Turquette" <mturquette@...libre.com>, "Stephen Boyd"
 <sboyd@...nel.org>, "Philipp Zabel" <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, "Linus
 Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Lee
 Jones" <lee@...nel.org>, "Thomas Bogendoerfer" <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
Cc: <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, "Vladimir Kondratiev"
 <vladimir.kondratiev@...ileye.com>, "Gregory CLEMENT"
 <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>, "Thomas Petazzoni"
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, "Tawfik Bayouk"
 <tawfik.bayouk@...ileye.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] dt-bindings: clock: mobileye,eyeq5-clk: drop
 bindings

Hello,

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 6:05 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/05/2024 17:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 03/05/2024 16:20, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> >> Switch from sub-nodes in system-controller for each functionality to a
> >> single node representing the entire OLB instance. dt-bindings is
> >> unnecessary and soc/mobileye/mobileye,eyeq5-olb.yaml will inherit all
> >> properties.
> > 
> > Why changing this? You just added these bindings not so long time ago...
> > This is very confusing to push bindings and then immediately ask to
> > remove them.

See this revision as a proposal of something that has been asked
multiple times in previous reviews. See message from Stephen Boyd on
last revision [0], or discussion with Rob Herring on much earlier
revision [1].

Proposal from Stephen Boyd of using auxiliary devices makes sense, that
could be the future direction of this series. It won't change the
dt-bindings aspect of it, only the driver implementations.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/daa732cb31d947c308513b535930c729.sboyd@kernel.org/
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240124151405.GA930997-robh@kernel.org/

> One more point - anyway this should be revert with clear explanation WHY
> you are reverting bindings.

I'll make sure to use standard revert formatting and explain why it is
being done.

Thanks,

--
Théo Lebrun, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com