netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: ethernet: cpsw: introduce ti,am3352-cpsw compatible string

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: <52179448.1020906@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:56:40 -0400
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bcousson@...libre.com>,
	<nsekhar@...com>, <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <ujhelyi.m@...il.com>,
	<mugunthanvnm@...com>, <vaibhav.bedia@...com>, <d-gerlach@...com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: ethernet: cpsw: introduce ti,am3352-cpsw
 compatible string

On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> 
>>> +static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
>>> +	{
>>> +		.compatible	= "ti,am3352-cpsw",
>>
>> I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version
>> as a compatible instead of using a SOC name. Whats really SOC specific
>> on this IP ? Sorry i have missed any earlier discussion on this but
>> this approach doesn't seem good. Its like adding SOC checks in the
>> driver subsystem.
> 
> As I already mentioned in the cover letter and in the commit message, I
> just don't know which criteria makes most sense here.
> 
> On a general note, I would say that chances that this exactly IP core
> with the same version number will appear on some other silicon which
> doesn't support the control mode register in an AM33xx fashion, is not
> necessarily negligible.
> 
> So what that new compatible string denotes is the cpsw in a version as
> found on am3352 SoCs, which is actually exactly what it does.
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion here, but see your point. I just don't
> have a better idea on how to treat that.
> 
So just stick the IP version or call it cpsw-v1... cpsw-v2 etc.
That way if in future if someone uses those features, they can use
this compatible if they don't they use the one which suites that
SOC.

Regards,
Santosh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html