linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: google: add gs101-raven and generic gs101-pixel

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: <d960e22e-01ad-406d-9616-d45edbef0232@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:14:24 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Peter Griffin
 <peter.griffin@...aro.org>, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
 Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
Cc: Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: google: add gs101-raven and
 generic gs101-pixel

On 23/12/2024 08:45, André Draszik wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Sun, 2024-12-22 at 12:38 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/12/2024 12:27, André Draszik wrote:
>>> Raven is Google's code name for Pixel 6 Pro. Since there are
>>> differences compared to Pixel 6 (Oriole), we need to add a separate
>>> compatible for it.
>>>
>>> We also want to support a generic DT, which can work on any type of
>>
>> There are no such generic DT devices upstream, so we cannot add bindings
>> for them.
> 
> Do you have a better suggestion for the wording?
> How about 'gs101-based Pixel base board'?

It's not exactly about the wording but the concept. We don't have
generic devices, thus no generic DT (DTS). Period. Thus you cannot have
such schema.

> 
>>> gs101-based Pixel device, e.g. Pixel 6, or Pixel 6 Pro, or Pixel 6a (as
>>> a future addition). Such a DT will have certain nodes disabled / not
>>> added. To facilitate such a generic gs101-based Pixel device, also add
>>> a more generic gs101-pixel compatible. We can not just use the existing
>>> google,gs101 for that, as it refers to the SoC, not a board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/google.yaml | 18 ++++++++++++++----
>>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/google.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/google.yaml
>>> index e20b5c9b16bc..a8faf2256242 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/google.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/google.yaml
>>> @@ -34,11 +34,21 @@ properties:
>>>      const: '/'
>>>    compatible:
>>>      oneOf:
>>> -      - description: Google Pixel 6 / Oriole
>>> +      - description: Google GS101 Pixel devices, as generic Pixel, or Pixel 6
>>> +          (Oriole), or 6 Pro (Raven)
>>> +        minItems: 2
>>> +        maxItems: 3
>>>          items:
>>> -          - enum:
>>> -              - google,gs101-oriole
>>> -          - const: google,gs101
>>> +          enum:
>>> +            - google,gs101-oriole
>>> +            - google,gs101-raven
>>> +            - google,gs101-pixel
>>> +            - google,gs101
>>
>> SoC cannot be a board in the same time.
> 
> Can you please expand? google,gs101 is the SoC, the other ones are boards.
> Is the commit message unclear?

You now say that these are valid boards:

compatible = "google,gs101", "google,gs101";
(although compatibles

compatible = "google,gs101", "google,gs101-pixel";

Both are wrong. SoC should not be before the board and SoC cannot be
used alone. Your schema allows that and that's not good.

I did not get what you want to achieve here, so tricky to advice.

Best regards,
Krzysztof