linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: reset: add generic bit reset controller

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: <619128481807b279e5d3b7967b00e7f094dae7ba.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:22:07 +0100
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Inochi Amaoto
 <inochiama@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
  Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>,
 Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt
 <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Guo Ren
 <guoren@...nel.org>, Uwe Kleine-König
 <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sophgo@...ts.linux.dev, 
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Yixun Lan <dlan@...too.org>, Longbin Li
 <looong.bin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: reset: add generic bit reset controller

On Do, 2025-02-13 at 10:35 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 10:08:54AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > Some SoCs from Aspeed, Allwinner, Sophgo and Synopsys have
> > a simple reset controller by toggling bit. It is a hard time
> > for each device to add its own compatible to the driver.
> > Since this device share a common design, it is possible to
> > add a common device to reduce these unnecessary change.
> 
> SoC components are rarely that simple and even if it is just a bit,
> usually it is part of one or few registers.

Yes, in those cases (which are probably most of them), I would argue
this binding doesn't really fit.

> Anyway, there are already bindings for reset-simple and I do not
> understand why this has to be duplicated.

I think the motivation is to not have to add a new binding document and
modify reset-simple.c every time there is a new SoC. I wonder if some
of this can be mitigated by adding just the binding document similar to
trivial-devices.yaml, without the actual "reset-simple" compatible.

> 
regards
Philipp