linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: dts: ti: Introduce J742S2 SoC family

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]

Message-ID: <20240731135714.p53lki7mihzxcyk2@uda0497581>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:27:14 +0530
From: Manorit Chawdhry <m-chawdhry@...com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
CC: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Udit Kumar
	<u-kumar1@...com>,
        Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@...com>,
        Aniket Limaye
	<a-limaye@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: dts: ti: Introduce J742S2 SoC family

Hi Nishanth,

On 06:06-20240731, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 09:49-20240731, Manorit Chawdhry wrote:
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "k3-j784s4.dtsi"
> > > > +
> > > > +/ {
> > > > +	model = "Texas Instruments K3 J742S2 SoC";
> > > > +	compatible = "ti,j742s2";
> > > > +
> > > > +	cpus {
> > > > +		cpu-map {
> > > > +			/delete-node/ cluster1;
> > > > +		};
> > > > +	};
> > > > +
> > > > +	/delete-node/ cpu4;
> > > > +	/delete-node/ cpu5;
> > > > +	/delete-node/ cpu6;
> > > > +	/delete-node/ cpu7;
> > > 
> > > I suggest refactoring by renaming the dtsi files as common and split out
> > > j784s4 similar to j722s/am62p rather than using /delete-node/
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't mind the suggestion Nishanth if there is a reason behind it.
> > Could you tell why we should not be using /delete-node/? 
> > 
> 
> Maintenance, readability and sustenance are the reasons. This is a
> optimized die. It will end up having it's own changes in property
> and integration details. While reuse is necessary, modifying the
> properties with overrides and /delete-nodes/ creates maintenance
> challenges down the road. We already went down this road with am62p
> reuse with j722s, and eventually determined split and reuse is the
> best option. See [1] for additional guidance.
> 
> 
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst#n189

Thank you for giving some reasoning, would do the needful!

Regards,
Manorit

> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon
> Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D