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: <20240708142344.47da466e@xps-13>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:23:44 +0200
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, 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

Hi Krzysztof,

krzk@...nel.org wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:33:04 +0200:

> 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?

No there is not. But I don't think there is a "base" model either.
Just multiple SoCs named cv18<something> with apparently the same ADC.

So actually I guess the discussion here is about the wildcard
compatible. It feels strange to me to have no generic compatible either
with a wildcard or with a "base" implementation (because there is
probably none). So I guess the solution here is to just list a single
specific compatible in the end.

Thanks,
Miquèl