netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: net: Add support for J-Core EMAC

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: <bc96aab8-fbb4-4869-a40a-d655e01bb5c7@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:58:07 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: "D. Jeff Dionne" <jeff@...esemi.io>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
 Artur Rojek <contact@...ur-rojek.eu>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: net: Add support for J-Core EMAC

On 18/08/2025 10:21, D. Jeff Dionne wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2025, at 17:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
>> git grep jcore,emac
>>
>> Gives me zero?
> 
> Um, right.  It’s not upstream yet.  Thanks for your work to get that done, Artur.
> 
>>> If an incompatible version comes up, it should use a different
>>> (versioned?) compatible value.
>>
>> Versions are allowed if they follow some documented and known vendor SoC versioning scheme. Is this the case here?
>>
>> This is some sort of SoC, right? So it should have actual SoC name?
> 
> No.  It’s a generic IP core for multiple SoCs, which do have names.

Then you need other SoCs compatibles, because we do not allow generic
items. See writing bindings.

> 
> This is the correct naming scheme.  All compatible devices and SoCs match properly.

No, it is not a correct naming scheme. Please read writing bindings.

Best regards,
Krzysztof