linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: dt-bindings: document dvdd-supply property for awinic,aw88261

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: <1ab13178-8253-4dc7-9143-6684ededd8f9@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2026 17:10:28 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Bharadwaj Raju <bharadwaj.raju@...hinesoul.in>,
 Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Weidong Wang <wangweidong.a@...nic.com>
Cc: Bhushan Shah <bhushan.shah@...hinesoul.in>,
 Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@...rphone.com>,
 ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: dt-bindings: document dvdd-supply property for
 awinic,aw88261

On 11/01/2026 13:48, Bharadwaj Raju wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026, at 5:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Why? Was it missing? Why require it, which is an ABI break (or is not?)?
>> Why is ABI break allowed or what is its impact?
> 
> Right now there are no users of aw88261 in the kernel device tree sources.
> This patch is part of an effort to mainline the FairPhone 5, for which we 
> will add the first use of this compatible, and there we need to specify 
> dvdd-supply for this chip's power supply.

You mean the bindings were incomplete?

> 
> Since there are no present users, I thought it was OK to add a new required 
> property. If not, I can make it optional.

Nothing like that was explained in commit msg. Also your explanation
above does not consider out of tree users of this ABI. That's fine in
general, but needs reason why you are doing this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof