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]
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 16:59:02 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 12/14] dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: add
 ocelot-ext documentation

On 04/10/2022 14:15, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:19:33PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> +  # Ocelot-ext VSC7512
>>> +  - |
>>> +    spi {
>>> +        soc@0 {
>>
>> soc in spi is a bit confusing.
> 
> Do you have a better suggestion for a node name? This is effectively a
> container for peripherals which would otherwise live under a /soc node,

/soc node implies it does not live under /spi node. Otherwise it would
be /spi/soc, right?

> if they were accessed over MMIO by the internal microprocessor of the
> SoC, rather than by an external processor over SPI.
> 
>> How is this example different than previous one (existing soc example)?
>> If by compatible and number of ports, then there is no much value here.
> 
> The positioning relative to the other nodes is what's different.

Positioning of nodes is not worth another example, if everything else is
the same. What is here exactly tested or shown by example? Using a
device in SPI controller?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists