linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Add compatible for Belling BL24S64

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mf5+3KvKKrVJhx9_CmQ-tN69cahkHgjVgL5M7XCZHuNSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 21:51:16 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Luca Weiss <luca@...aweiss.eu>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@....qualcomm.com>, 
	Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, 
	~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: eeprom: at24: Add compatible for Belling BL24S64

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 7:46 PM Luca Weiss <luca@...aweiss.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 18-08-2025 5:51 p.m., Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 05:37:54PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> >> Add the compatible for an 64Kb EEPROM from Belling.
> >
> > It is generally not required to add a compatible here assuming
> > "atmel,24c64" is enough to identify the specific device (i.e. read the
> > device's ID registers). If it is not sufficient, then some details here
> > about why would be useful.
>
> I thought DT was meant to describe the hardware, and this specific
> EEPROM on the device is a Belling BL24S64, and it's software-compatible
> to this generic atmel compatible.
> That's why we have compatible = "belling,bl24s64", "atmel,24c64";
>
> Am I missing something, or misunderstanding how DT is meant to be written?
>

Right, this is what we've been doing historically which is evident by
the number of compatibles we have in the schema that are never
mentioned in the driver C code.

Bartosz