netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: bluetooth: broadcom: Add BCM4349B1 DT binding

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]

Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 10:38:56 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: bluetooth: broadcom: Add BCM4349B1 DT binding

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:16 AM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On 22.05.22 23:03, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 10:07 PM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> >> The BCM4349B1 chip is a single-chip Bluetooth 5.0 controller and
> >> Transceiver. It is contained in the CYW/BCM89359 WiFi+BT package.
> >
> > So the BT and the package have two different names.
>
> The package also goes by the name BCM4349B1 apparently.
> Cypress support had later confirmed BCM4349B1 and BCM89359 to
> be the same chipset. I should probably rephrase the commit message.
>
>
> >> +      - brcm,bcm4349-bt
> >
> > Then why do you have to tag on "-bt" on this compatible?
> >
> > That is typically used when the wifi and bt has the *same* name, so
> > the only way to distinguish between them is a suffix.

> I think that's the case here too.

OK then!
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij