linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 1/4] dt-bindings: i2c: Split AST2600 binding into a new YAML

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8341a903-639b-471a-8425-a98c473f5ab0@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 10:06:04 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>,
 Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, joel@....id.au, andi.shyti@...nel.org,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 andrew@...econstruct.com.au, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
 andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, naresh.solanki@...ements.com,
 linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 1/4] dt-bindings: i2c: Split AST2600 binding into a
 new YAML

On 24/10/2025 09:56, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
>> Although now I saw next patch, so clearly this commit is incomplete.
> 
> The split that Ryan has done here - by shifting to an identical separate
> binding, then making the changes explicit - allows us to review the
> actual changes without losing them in the move. Sounds like a benefit to
> me?

Not related. I commented that rationale is incomplete. We do not move
parts of bindings because new device is someway different. There are
hundreds of bindings which cover different devices. We move them because
the binding is different.

> 
>> You just need allOf:if:then: section to narrow the
>> constraints/presence of properties.
> 
> That seems like a more complex approach. This is separate IP from the
> 2500 controllers, wouldn't that warrant a new binding spec?
>

Not much different than every other soc. All of them are separate IPs.
Look at any Samsung, NXP or Qualcomm binding. Separate IPs.

Best regards,
Krzysztof