linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] dt-bindings: firmware: scmi: Introduce compatible string

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: <20250227031551.GC11411@nxa18884-linux>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 11:15:51 +0800
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, cristian.marussi@....com,
	saravanak@...gle.com, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] dt-bindings: firmware: scmi: Introduce compatible string

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 05:19:53PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:09:45AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 05:44:56PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>> > Quote Sudeep's reply"
>> > I am not blocking you. What I mentioned is I don't agree that DT can be used
>> > to resolve this issue, but I don't have time or alternate solution ATM. So
>> > if you propose DT based solution and the maintainers agree for the proposed
>> > bindings I will take a look and help you to make that work. But I will raise
>> > any objections I may have if the proposal has issues mainly around the
>> > compatibility and ease of maintenance.
>> > "
>>
>> This all looks to me like SCMI has failed to provide common interfaces.
>>
>
>We can look into this if having such common interface can solve this problem.
>
>> I'm indifferent. If everyone involved thinks adding compatibles will
>> solve whatever the issues are, then it's going to be fine with me
>> (other than the issue above). It doesn't seem like you have that, so I
>> don't know that I'd keep going down this path.
>
>Sorry if I was ambiguous with my stance as quoted above. For me, 2 devices
>pointing to the same node seems implementation issue rather than fixing/
>working around by extending DT bindings like this $subject patch is
>attempting.
>
>If you disagree with that and think 2 devices in the kernel shouldn't
>point to the same device tree node, then yes I see this is right approach
>to take. ATM I don't know which is correct and what are other developer's
>include DT maintainer opinion on this. I just didn't like the way Peng
>was trying to solve it with some block/allow list which wouldn't have
>fixed the issue or just created new ones.

With compatible string, no need block/allow list anymore I think.

But honestly I have not spend efforts on do driver changes to support
compatible string. If in the end we all agree on the proposal,
I could start on driver changes.

Thanks,
Peng

>
>--
>Regards,
>Sudeep