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  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]
Date:   Sat, 23 May 2020 12:15:59 +0200
From:   "Fuzzey, Martin" <>
To:     Andy Duan <>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <>,,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Shawn Guo <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/4] dt-bindings: fec: update the gpr property

>  - gpr: phandle of SoC general purpose register mode. Required for wake on LAN
> -  on some SoCs
> +  on some SoCs. Register bits of stop mode control, the format is
> +       <&gpr req_gpr req_bit>.
> +        gpr is the phandle to general purpose register node.
> +        req_gpr is the gpr register offset for ENET stop request.
> +        req_bit is the gpr bit offset for ENET stop request.

More of a DT binding changes policy question, do we care about
supporting the old
no argument binding too?

I don't think it actually matters seeing as the no argument gpr node
binding was only added recently anyway.
But it was backported to the stable trees and
Documentation/bindings/ABI.txt says

   "Bindings can be augmented, but the driver shouldn't break when given
     the old binding. ie. add additional properties, but don't change the
     meaning of an existing property. For drivers, default to the original
     behaviour when a newly added property is missing."

Myself I think this is overkill in this case and am fine with just
changing the binding without the driver handling the old case but
that's Rob's call to make I think.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists