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: <f6de4e1a-b3fa-457e-8819-041b2fb8739a@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 10:03:36 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
 Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
 cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Use 'ufshc' as the node name
 for UFS controller nodes

On 15/05/2024 09:50, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:50:15PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 03:08:40PM +0200, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>> Devicetree binding has documented the node name for UFS controllers as
>>> 'ufshc'. So let's use it instead of 'ufs' which is for the UFS devices.
>>
>> Can you point out where that's been documented?
> 
> Typo here. s/Devicetree binding/Devicetree spec
> 
> https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/blob/main/source/chapter2-devicetree-basics.rst#generic-names-recommendation

I read your explanation in DT spec commit:

"In a lot of places, 'ufs' is used as the node name to identify the host
    controller, but it is wrong since 'ufs' denotes 'UFS device'."

but isn't this the same as with MMC? We do not call the nodes "mmchc" or
"mmch", even though all of them are hosts, because "mmc" is the card.
The same for most of other storage devices. Or USB. The term
"controller" appears only for few cases like clocks, resets and power.

When looking at storage nodes, ufsHC is an exception here.

Best regards,
Krzysztof


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ