On 13/07/2022 13:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
...
For the other patches, I found two more problems:
Bitan Biswas (1):
soc/tegra: fuse: Expose Tegra production status
Please don't just add random attributes in the soc device infrastructure.
This one has a completely generic name but a SoC specific
meaning, and it lacks a description in Documentation/ABI.
Not sure what the right ABI is here, but this is something that needs
to be discussed more broadly when you send a new version.
I wasn't aware that the SoC device infrastructure was restricted to only
standardized attributes. Looks like there are a few other outliers that
add custom attributes: UX500, ARM Integrator and RealView, and OMAP2.
Do we have some other place where this kind of thing can be exposed? Or
do we just need to come up with some better way of namespacing these?
Perhaps it would also be sufficient if all of these were better
documented so that people know what to look for on their platform of
interest.
It's not a 100% strict rule, I've just tried to limit it as much as possible,
and sometimes missed drivers doing it anyway. My main goal here is
to make things consistent between SoC families, so if one piece of
information is provided by a number of them, I'd rather have a standard
attribute, or a common way of encoding this in the existing attributes
than to have too many custom attributes with similar names.
Makes sense. Any recommendations for this specific attribute? I could
imagine other vendors may have engineering devices and production
versions. This is slightly different from the silicon version.
Cheers
Jon
--
nvpublic
