linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 3/4] dt-bindings: interconnect: Add generic compatible qcom,epss-l3-perf

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <936fc52e-95a7-48f6-85bb-13dbc10ddb71@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:00:36 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Raviteja Laggyshetty <quic_rlaggysh@...cinc.com>,
 Georgi Djakov <djakov@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: Odelu Kukatla <quic_okukatla@...cinc.com>,
 Mike Tipton <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>, Sibi Sankar
 <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/4] dt-bindings: interconnect: Add generic compatible
 qcom,epss-l3-perf

On 25/11/2024 18:45, Raviteja Laggyshetty wrote:
> EPSS instance on sc7280, sm8250 SoCs, use PERF_STATE register instead of

This should explain that these devices are actually 100% compatible.

> REG_L3_VOTE to scale L3 clocks, hence adding a new generic
> compatible "qcom,epss-l3-perf" for these targets.

Not the best reason... You add one more generic compatible, because
devices are different? With such reason answer is: no, do not add
generic compatibles, because they are not generic.

The entire point of having generic compatibles is that they really are
generic. Here you prove that they are not generic, so why creating one
more generic compatible which might not be generic at all?

I already expressed above concerns multiple times:
1. In previous versions of this patchset
2. In other threads

I am not against this change, but I am not going to Ack it. Get acks
from other maintainers, I am not happy with multiple
generic-but-actually-not-generic compatibles. I think that is poor approach.

Best regards,
Krzysztof