linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: rename gw7905 to gw75xx

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: <8007abef-38bb-4d7d-a453-00bb5e6bede5@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 20:34:30 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
 Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
 Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: rename gw7905 to gw75xx

On 24/05/2024 20:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 04:04:50PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:
>> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 7:47 AM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 09:02:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2024 23:50, Tim Harvey wrote:
>>>>> The GW7905 was renamed to GW7500 before production release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 4 ++--
>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
>>>>> index 0027201e19f8..d8bc295079e3 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
>>>>> @@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ properties:
>>>>>                - fsl,imx8mm-ddr4-evk       # i.MX8MM DDR4 EVK Board
>>>>>                - fsl,imx8mm-evk            # i.MX8MM EVK Board
>>>>>                - fsl,imx8mm-evkb           # i.MX8MM EVKB Board
>>>>> +              - gateworks,imx8mm-gw75xx-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board
>>>>
>>>> That's not even equivalent. You 7500 != 75xx.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>                - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7904
>>>>> -              - gateworks,imx8mm-gw7905-0x # i.MX8MM Gateworks Board
>>>>
>>>> Compatibles do not change. It's just a string. Fixed string.
>>>
>>> I think there's justification here for removing it, per the commit
>>> message, the rename happened before the device was available to
>>> customers.
>>> Additionally, I think we can give people that upstream things before they're
>>> publicly available a bit of slack, otherwise we're just discouraging
>>> people from upstreaming early.
>>
>> Hi Conor,
>>
>> Thanks for understanding - that's exactly what happened. I'm in the
>> habit of submitting patches early and often and it's no fun when
>> something like a silly product name gets changed and breaks all the
>> hard work.
>>
>> The board model number is stored in an EEPROM at manufacturing time
>> and that EEPROM model is used to build a dt name. So instead of GW7905
>> which would be a one-off custom design it was decided to change the
>> product to a GW75xx. The difference between GW7500 and GW75xx is
>> because we subload components on boards between GW7500/GW7501/GW7502
>> etc but the dt is the same.
>>
>> If there is resistance to a patch that renames it then I guess I'll
>> have to submit a patch that removes the obsolete board, then adds back
>> the same board under a different name. Shall I do that?
> 
> I think this patch is fine - other than the inconsistency that Krzysztof
> pointed out between the "renamed to gw7500" and the "gw75xx" in the new
> compatible.

I am not a fan of renaming compatibles because of marketing change,
because compatible does not have to reflect the marketing name, but
there was already precedent from Qualcomm which I did not nak, so fine
here as well. Double wildcard 75xx is however a bit worrying.

Best regards,
Krzysztof