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

Message-Id: <20251120061037.112097-1-wenliang202407@163.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 01:10:37 -0500
From: Wenliang Yan <wenliang202407@....com>
To: krzk@...nel.org
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,
	wenliang202407@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: hwmon: ti,ina3221: Add SQ52210

At 2025-11-19 17:17:18, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>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

Okay, I will use oneOf to express the compatibility relationship in the
v3 version.

Thanks,
Wenlaing Yan