linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: hwmon: ti,ina3221: Add SQ52210

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: <b37737fc-5e43-4599-ad20-73fb37c2ff7e@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:17:18 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Wenliang Yan <wenliang202407@....com>
Cc: conor+dt@...nel.org, corbet@....net, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 jdelvare@...e.com, krzk+dt@...nel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...ck-us.net, robh@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: hwmon: ti,ina3221: Add SQ52210

On 19/11/2025 10:06, Wenliang Yan wrote:
> At 2025-11-19 15:22:38, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:51:41AM -0500, Wenliang Yan wrote:
>>> Add a compatible string for sq52210. The sq52210 is forward compatible
>>
>> forward?
>>
>>> with INA3221 and incorporates alert registers to implement four
>>
>> But this suggests opposite.
>>
>> Your driver changes confirm that even more - it is not forward
>> compatible. And in other way why wouldn't compatibility be expressed in
>> the bindings?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> 
> Perhaps my use of "forward" was inaccurate. I only meant to express that
> at the hardware level, the SQ52210 contains all the registers and
> functions of the INA3221, and builds upon them by adding current, power,
> and alert registers. However, these additional registers don't require
> adding more specific properties in the binding file.
> Are you suggesting that I'm missing the description of SQ52210's
> characteristics in the documentation?

This is backwards compatibility and if that's the case - driver can bind
via old compatible and work correctly with previous functionality - why
not expressing it in the bindings as compatible devices? See writing
bindings.

Best regards,
Krzysztof