linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: soundwire: add slave bindings

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:   Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:25:00 +0100
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        bgoswami@...eaurora.org, plai@...eaurora.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt-bindings: soundwire: add slave bindings



On 09/08/2019 05:54, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 08-08-19, 20:52, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 05:48:56PM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2019 16:58, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>
>>>>> +- sdw-instance-id: Should be ('Instance ID') from SoundWire
>>>>> +          Enumeration Address. Instance ID is for the cases
>>>>> +          where multiple Devices of the same type or Class
>>>>> +          are attached to the bus.
>>
>>>> so it is actually required if you have a single Slave device? Or is it
>>>> only required when you have more than 1 device of the same type?
>>
>>> This is mandatory for any slave device!
>>
>> If it's mandatory the wording is a bit unclear.  How about something
>> like:
>>
>> 	Should be ('Instance ID') from the SoundWire Enumeration
>> 	Address.  This must always be provided, if multiple devices
>> 	with the same type or class or attached to the bus each
>> 	instance must have a distinct value.
> 
> That helps to make it clear.
> 
> Also the section of properties starts with Mandatory property, it should
> be made Mandatory Properties instead, like in other binding docs to make
> it clear that properties mentioned in the section are mandatory

Will update as suggested!

thanks,
srini
>