netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bings: net: fsl,fec: update compatible item

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: <00614b8f-0fdd-3d7e-0153-3846be5bb645@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:04:20 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        s.hauer@...gutronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com, linux-imx@....com,
        peng.fan@....com, ping.bai@....com, sudeep.holla@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, aisheng.dong@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bings: net: fsl,fec: update compatible item

On 18/08/2022 16:57, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:46:33PM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/08/2022 12:22, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 10:51:02AM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 18/08/2022 04:33, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 11:12:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml
>>>>>>> index daa2f79a294f..6642c246951b 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml
>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml
>>>>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,10 @@ properties:
>>>>>>>            - enum:
>>>>>>>                - fsl,imx7d-fec
>>>>>>>            - const: fsl,imx6sx-fec
>>>>>>> +      - items:
>>>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>>>> +              - fsl,imx8ulp-fec
>>>>>>> +          - const: fsl,imx6ul-fec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is wrong.  fsl,imx6ul-fec has to be followed by fsl,imx6q-fec. I
>>>>>> think someone made similar mistakes earlier so this is a mess.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, not sure I follow this.  Supposing we want to have the following
>>>>> compatible for i.MX8ULP FEC, why do we have to have "fsl,imx6q-fec"
>>>>> here?
>>>>>
>>>>> 	fec: ethernet@...50000 {
>>>>> 		compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-fec", "fsl,imx6ul-fec";
>>>>> 		...
>>>>> 	};
>>>>
>>>> Because a bit earlier this bindings is saying that fsl,imx6ul-fec must
>>>> be followed by fsl,imx6q-fec.
>>>
>>> The FEC driver OF match table suggests that fsl,imx6ul-fec and fsl,imx6q-fec
>>> are not really compatible.
>>>
>>> static const struct of_device_id fec_dt_ids[] = {
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx25-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX25_FEC], },
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx27-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX27_FEC], },
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx28-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX28_FEC], },
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx6q-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX6Q_FEC], },
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,mvf600-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[MVF600_FEC], },
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx6sx-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX6SX_FEC], },
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx6ul-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX6UL_FEC], },
>>
>> I don't see here any incompatibility. Binding driver with different
>> driver data is not a proof of incompatible devices.
> 
> To me, different driver data is a good sign of incompatibility.  It
> mostly means that software needs to program the hardware block
> differently.

Any device being 100% compatible with old one and having additional
features will have different driver data... so no, it's not a proof.
There are many of such examples and we call them compatible, because the
device could operate when bound by the fallback compatible.

If this is the case here - how do I know? I raised and the answer was
affirmative...

> 
> 
>> Additionally, the
>> binding describes the hardware, not the driver.
>>
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mq-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX8MQ_FEC], },
>>>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx8qm-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX8QM_FEC], },
>>>         { /* sentinel */ }
>>> };
>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, fec_dt_ids);
>>>
>>> Should we fix the binding doc?
>>
>> Maybe, I don't know. The binding describes the hardware, so based on it
>> the devices are compatible. Changing this, except ABI impact, would be
>> possible with proper reason, but not based on Linux driver code.
> 
> Well, if Linux driver code is written in the way that hardware requires,
> I guess that's just based on hardware characteristics.
> 
> To me, having a device compatible to two devices that require different
> programming model is unnecessary and confusing.

It's the first time anyone mentions here the programming model is
different... If it is different, the devices are likely not compatible.

However when I raised this issue last time, there were no concerns with
calling them all compatible. Therefore I wonder if the folks working on
this driver actually know what's there... I don't know, I gave
recommendations based on what is described in the binding and expect the
engineer to come with that knowledge.


Best regards,
Krzysztof