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: <c20e0b8a-ec59-4359-ba5e-1a616fde9894@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 10:35:38 +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 10:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.


So let the move happen, but please explain in the commit msg that
devices are completely different - nothing in common - and thus the
binding will be different. We indeed do not keep completely different
devices in one binding, but based on commit msg I had impression this
was just major block upgrade.

Best regards,
Krzysztof