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: <j6xw7cpk4mfggonh5dhqz7dqj7abo75sojaann5pv2uar5en67@sdo2ygvttzqj>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:18:03 +0800
From: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>
To: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, 
	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 Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:22:07AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yes, I agree. 

> > 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. 

Yeah, this is the motivation for me to write this patch. It seems that I
describe it in a wrong way.

> 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.
> 

It is better to keep the original compatible. Adding new base compatible
will break existing device and make the migration hard.

Regards,
Inochi