linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] riscv: dts: sophgo: Put sdhci compatible in dt of specific SoC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:40:48 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Bonnefille <thomas.bonnefille@...tlin.com>,
	Yixun Lan <dlan@...too.org>, Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>,
	Chao Wei <chao.wei@...hgo.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
	Miquèl Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] riscv: dts: sophgo: Put sdhci compatible in dt of
 specific SoC

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 09:16:43PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:16:32AM +0200, Thomas Bonnefille wrote:
> > On 6/17/24 1:58 AM, Yixun Lan wrote:
> > > On 18:47 Wed 12 Jun     , Inochi Amaoto wrote:

> > > > Is this change necessary? IIRC, the sdhci is the same across
> > > > the whole series.

> sorry for being late, I was busy in the past 2.5 month. Per my
> understanding, the sdhci in cv1800b is the same as the one in
> sg200x. Maybe I'm wrong, but this was my impression when I cooked
> the sdhci driver patch for these SoCs.
> 
> > > I tend to agree with Inochi here, if it's same across all SoC, then no bother to
> > > split, it will cause more trouble to maintain..
> > > 
> > 
> > To be honest, I agree with this to, but as a specific compatible for the
> > SG2002 was created in commit 849e81817b9b, I thought that the best practice
> > was to use it.
> 
> I'd like to take this chance to query DT maintainers: FWICT, in the past
> even if the PLIC is the same between SoCs, adding a new compatible for
> them seems a must. So when time goes on, the compatbile list would be
> longer and longer, is it really necessary? Can we just use the existing
> compatible string?
> DT maintainers may answered the query in the past, if so, sorry for
> querying again.

For new integrations of an IP, yes, new specific compatibles please. New
integrations may have different bugs etc, even if the IP itself is the
same. If there's different SoCs that are the same die, but with elements
fused off, then sure, use the same compatible.

I expect the list of compatibles in the binding to grow rather large, but
that is fine. No one SoC is going to do anything other than something like
compatible = "renesas,$soc-plic", "andestech,corecomplex-plic", "riscv,plic";
which I think is perfectly fine.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)