linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 1/2] dt-bindings: dmaengine: Add support for ATCDMAC300 DMA engine

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: <aabf395a-eef2-49b2-9938-b7bb8aa838c8@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 08:48:00 +0900
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: CL Wang <cl634@...estech.com>,
	gg@...inux02.smtp.subspace.kernel.org
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, vkoul@...nel.org,
 dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tim609@...estech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/2] dt-bindings: dmaengine: Add support for ATCDMAC300
 DMA engine

On 08/10/2025 22:35, CL Wang wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the earlier confusion.
> 
> To elaborate on the rationale:
> "andestech,atcdmac300" is the IP core name of the DMA controller, which serves
> as a generic fallback compatible shared across multiple Andes SoCs.
> 
> Primary compatible (SoC-specific):
> andestech,qilai-dma refers to the DMA controller instance implemented on the
> Qilai SoC, following the SoC-specific recommendation.
> 
> Fallback compatible (IP-core specific):
> andestech,atcdmac300 represents the reusable IP block used across different
> Andes SoCs that share the same register map and programming model.
> 
> Keeping andestech,atcdmac300 as a fallback helps avoid code duplication and
> allows a single driver to support future SoCs using the same hardware IP.

No, it helps in nothing.


> 
> This approach follows the DeviceTree binding guideline:
> 
> “DO use a SoC-specific compatible for all SoC devices, followed by a fallback
> if appropriate. SoC-specific compatibles are also preferred for the fallbacks.”

No, it does not. You just ignored completely last sentence.


Best regards,
Krzysztof