linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: thermal: sophgo,cv1800-thermal: Add Sophgo CV1800 thermal

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:
 <MA0P287MB2822A2F07F21FC5445EF8946FEA32@MA0P287MB2822.INDP287.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:14:46 +0800
From: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>
To: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
 Haylen Chu <heylenay@...look.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
 Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
 Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
 Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: thermal: sophgo,cv1800-thermal: Add
 Sophgo CV1800 thermal

On 2024/7/17 9:27, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 08:05:10AM GMT, Chen Wang wrote:
>> On 2024/7/16 23:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 08:43:19PM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2024/7/16 17:42, Haylen Chu wrote:
>>>>> Add devicetree binding documentation for thermal sensors integrated in
>>>>> Sophgo CV180X SoCs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Haylen Chu <heylenay@...look.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     .../thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml        | 55 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>> I see sometimes you call it cv1800, and in patch 3, the file name is
>>>> cv180x_thermal.c, and for dts changes, you changed cv18xx.dtsi. Please unify
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I think sg200x is new name for cv181x serias, so if you want to cover
>>>> cv180x/sg200x, is cv18xx better?
>>>>
>>>>>     1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
>>>>>     create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..58bd4432cd10
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>> +---
>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/thermal/sophgo,cv1800-thermal.yaml#
>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>>> +
>>>>> +title: Sophgo CV1800 on-SoC Thermal Sensor
>>>>> +
>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>> +  - Haylen Chu <heylenay@...look.com>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +description: Sophgo CV1800 on-SoC thermal sensor
>>>>> +
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    enum:
>>>>> +      - sophgo,cv1800-thermal
>>>> cv18xx-thermal ?
>>> Please, no wildcards in compatibles :/
>> Sorry for my confusion.
>>
>> Haylen, so you want a compatible that matches an actual SoC and use it
>> everywhere?
>>
> This should depend. If this peripheral is SoC specific, it is OK
> for using SoC specific compatible. Otherwise, it should be series
> specific.
>
> For thermal sensors, I suggest using series-based compatible name
> as this peripheral is the same across the whole series IIRC.

What's the  "series-based compatible name" do you mean? Can you give an 
example?

And allow me clarify, what I said "a compatible that matches an actual 
SoC and use it everywhere" means to define "sophgo,cv1800-thermal" just 
as Haylen did and use it for all cv18xx SoC chips.

Anyway, as Conor suggested, we'd better not use wildcards (char 'x') in 
compatibles.

Thanks,

Chen

>> Or we can add ones for each SoC and have a fallback to cv1800.
> SoC specific compatible means most of the SoC have different part
> for this peripheral. For safety, it may not use the fallback
> generic compatible.
>
> Regards,
> Inochi