linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: ti: Add bindings for Variscite VAR-SOM-AM62P

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: <bb6bc232-cc3e-4689-952f-88cf580604fb@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 16:42:16 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Stefano Radaelli <stefano.radaelli21@...il.com>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
 Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: arm: ti: Add bindings for Variscite
 VAR-SOM-AM62P

On 10/07/2025 15:53, Stefano Radaelli wrote:
>> Then why do you define it reversed here? How this som-factor-processor
>> is an argument to my request to use som-factor-processor?
> 
> I apologize for the confusion in my previous email. I made an error in
> my explanation - our compatible strings actually follow the format
> "processor"-"som-factor", not "som-factor"-"processor" as I
> incorrectly stated. That's why our compatible string is
> "variscite,am62p-var-som" (processor-som-factor), consistent with the
> examples I provided of Variscite kernel like
> "variscite,imx93-var-som", "variscite,imx8mp-var-som", and
> "variscite,imx91-var-som".

There are no such compatibles. There are:

variscite,var-som-mx93
variscite,var-som-mx8mn

and others with exact format how I asked - var-som-<processor>.

Best regards,
Krzysztof