linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: Drop reset number constraints

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: <3ee057ab-927c-4eac-a933-a14a5849d66c@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 14:03:19 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I
 <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: Drop reset number
 constraints

On 2.02.2025 3:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/02/2025 16:56, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 27.01.2025 9:26 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 04:31:18AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
>>>>
>>>> (Almost?) all QMP PHYs come with both a "full reset" ("phy") and a
>>>> "retain certain registers" one ("phy_nocsr").
>>>>
>>>> Drop the maxItems=1 constraint for resets and reset_names as we go
>>>> ahead and straighten out the DT usage. After that's done (which
>>>> will involve modifying some clock drivers etc.), we may set
>>>> *min*Items to 2, bar some possible exceptions.
>>>
>>> You drop minItems now, so that's a bit confusing. If all devices have
>>> two resets, just change in top-level resets the minItems -> 2 now and
>>> mention that it does not affect the ABI, because Linux will support
>>> missing reset and it describes the hardware more accurately.
>>
>> This will generate a ton of warnings and resolving them may take an
>> additional cycle, as I'd need to get things merged through clk too,
>> so I thought this is a good transitional solution
> 
> I still don't understand why existing devices now get 1 reset, while
> previously they had minItems:2.

Hm, right..

Would it make sense to just remove the else: branch?

Konrad