linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc.yaml: Add Sophgo SARADC binding documentation

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: <304b7bb1-d315-4147-820b-1ec0aa63e759@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:33:04 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Bonnefille <thomas.bonnefille@...tlin.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>,
 Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>,
 Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt
 <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc.yaml:
 Add Sophgo SARADC binding documentation

On 08/07/2024 08:30, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    oneOf:
>>>>> +      - items:
>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>> +              - sophgo,cv1800b-saradc
>>>>> +          - const: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc  
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the fallback here makes sense. If there's other devices
>>>> with a compatible programming model added later, we can fall back to the
>>>> cv1800b.
> 
> I'm sorry but isn't this slightly disagreeing with the "writing
> bindings" doc pointed in v1? It says,
> 
> * DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same as or a subset
>   of prior implementations.
> 
> I believe we fall in the "devices are the same" category, so I would
> have myself wrote a similar binding here with a compatible matching
> them all, plus a hardware-implementation-specific compatible as well;
> just in case.

Fallback from one model to another. There is no "another" model here,
but wildcard. There is no such device as cv18xx, right?

Best regards,
Krzysztof