linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: net: Add support for J-Core EMAC

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: <CB2BF943-8629-4D01-8E52-EEC578A371B5@coresemi.io>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 22:55:51 +0900
From: "D. Jeff Dionne" <jeff@...esemi.io>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
 Artur Rojek <contact@...ur-rojek.eu>,
 Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: net: Add support for J-Core EMAC

Something like:

J-Core SoCs are assembled with an SoC generator tool from standard components.  An SoC has a ROM from soc_gen with a Device Tree binary included.  Therefore, J-Core SoC devices are designed to ‘just work’ with linux, but this means the DT entires are generic, slightly different than standard device tree practice.

J

> On Aug 18, 2025, at 22:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On 18/08/2025 12:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> No.  It’s a generic IP core for multiple SoCs, which do have names.
>>> 
>>> Then you need other SoCs compatibles, because we do not allow generic
>>> items. See writing bindings.
>>> 
>>>> This is the correct naming scheme.  All compatible devices and SoCs match properly.
>>> 
>>> No, it is not a correct naming scheme. Please read writing bindings.
>> 
>> Can we please relax this for this specific compatible value?
> 
> We can...
> 
>> All other devices in this specific hardware implementation were
>> accepted without SoC-specific compatible values ca. 9 years ago. AFAIK
>> the Ethernet MAC was the sole missing piece, because its Linux driver
>> was never attempted to be upstreamed before.
> 
> ...just provide some context and rationale in the commit msg.
> 
> Some (different) people pick up some irrelevant commits and use them as
> argument in different discussions in style: it was allowed there, so I
> can do the same.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof