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

Message-ID: <17b3c33c-d277-4a28-b6c8-4852d373b450@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 15:17:38 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: 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 03/02/2025 14:03, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I guess that's what you want to achieve here.

Best regards,
Krzysztof