linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] dt-bindings: pci: apple,pcie: Add t6020 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: <87a599qcne.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:48:53 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	asahi@...ts.linux.dev,
	alyssa@...enzweig.io,
	j@...nau.net,
	marcan@...can.st,
	sven@...npeter.dev,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	lpieralisi@...nel.org,
	kw@...ux.com,
	manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
	robh@...nel.org,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] dt-bindings: pci: apple,pcie: Add t6020 compatible string

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:41:15 +0000,
Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl> wrote:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:02:30 +0000
> > From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:50:18 +0000,
> > Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> > > > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:25:58 +0000
> > > 
> > > > @@ -50,6 +55,10 @@ properties:
> > > >        - const: port1
> > > >        - const: port2
> > > >        - const: port3
> > > > +      - const: phy0
> > > > +      - const: phy1
> > > > +      - const: phy2
> > > > +      - const: phy3
> > 
> > Do we need to make this t6020 specific?
> > 
> > Obviously, separate PHY registers do not make much sense before t6020,
> > but I couldn't find a way to describe that. I don't even know if
> > that's a desirable outcome.
> 
> I don't think there is a way to do that other than creating a separate
> binding for t6020.  But I'm far from a dt-schema expert.  Maybe robh
> has some advice here.

Huh, I'd rather not create another binding. The only thing this would
buy us is a stricter checking of the register ranges.  But it isn't
like this block is going to find its way in random HW, and this is
only described in a handful of core dtsi files anyway.

Unless someone screams (and provides a reasonable alternative), I will
leave it as is.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.