linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: net: can: grcan: Convert GRCAN CAN controllers binding from txt to 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <f57ccf4a-b43d-4de2-b745-3591cb18e730@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 11:10:56 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Arun Muthusamy <arun.muthusamy@...sler.com>
Cc: robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 mkl@...gutronix.de, mailhol@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: net: can: grcan: Convert GRCAN CAN
 controllers binding from txt to YAML

On 24/11/2025 16:26, Arun Muthusamy wrote:
> Thank you for the review. I  wish to clarify a few details concerning 
> the DT binding and seek your guidance on the preferred approach
> 
> On 11/18/2025 12:01 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> +      Fallback on node name matching for systems that don't provide compatible.
>>>> +    enum:
>>>> +      - GAISLER_GRCAN
>>>> +      - 01_03d
>>>> +      - GAISLER_GRHCAN
>>>> +      - "01_034"
>>> This does not really work. Are you really defining here "name" property?
> 
> PROM-based LEON systems identify uses the "node name" property, while 
> DTS-based NOEL systems use proper "|compatible"| strings.
> 

No, either node name or name property. There is no such thing as node
name property.

> The updated schema now uses:
> properties:
>    $nodename:
>      pattern: "^(GAISLER_GRCAN|01_03d|GAISLER_GRHCAN|01_034)$"

So node name?

Anyway, names are wrong - they do not follow DTS coding style at all.
You need to come rationale why incorrect style has to be used.

> 
>    compatible:
>      enum:
>        - gaisler,grcan
>        - gaisler,grcanfd
> 
> Please advice me if its the preferred  is a preferred way to describe or 
> structure this dual-matching approach.

Nothing above usually - you need specific device compatible. I also do
not know what is the difference between one and another - in terms of
hardware (don't mention drivers please).


Best regards,
Krzysztof