netdev - Re: [PATCH v8 5/7] can: ctucanfd: CTU CAN FD open-source IP core

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: <20220504063402.deowqy5lnmgg2mfy@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 08:34:02 +0200
From:   Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:     Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Carsten Emde <c.emde@...dl.org>, armbru@...hat.com,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marin Jerabek <martin.jerabek01@...il.com>,
        Ondrej Ille <ondrej.ille@...il.com>,
        Jiri Novak <jnovak@....cvut.cz>,
        Jaroslav Beran <jara.beran@...il.com>,
        Petr Porazil <porazil@...ron.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/7] can: ctucanfd: CTU CAN FD open-source IP core -
 platform/SoC support.

On 03.05.2022 17:07:21, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> Hello Geert,
> 
> On Tuesday 03 of May 2022 13:37:46 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Pavel,
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/ctucanfd/ctucanfd_platform.c
> > >
> > > +/* Match table for OF platform binding */
> > > +static const struct of_device_id ctucan_of_match[] = {
> > > +       { .compatible = "ctu,ctucanfd-2", },
> >
> > Do you need to match on the above compatible value?
> > The driver seems to treat the hardware the same, and the DT
> > bindings state the compatible value below should always be present.
> 
> I would keep it because there will be newer revisions and releases
> of the core and I consider "ctu,ctucanfd" as the match to generic
> one with maximal attempt to adjust to the version from provided
> info registers but identification with the fixed version
> "ctu,ctucanfd-2" ensures that some old hardware which is
> in the wild is directly recognized even at /sys level
> and if we need to do some workarounds for autodetection
> etc. it can be recognized.

As Geert said:
- There are 2 bindings in the driver which are (currently) treated the
  same.
- The binding documentation says devices must always have the
  ctu,ctucanfd compatible.

This means (currently) the ctu,ctucanfd-2 is not needed in the driver.
We can add it back once we need it.

Or are there devices that have a compatible of ctu,ctucanfd-2 without
stating to be compatible with ctu,ctucanfd?

regards,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)