linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: Add binding doc for iProc IDM device

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]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKXdo+wouHZV9VFQojtQNK3NOLmj3NtnTmVo2fX541GPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:52:21 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>, Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "maintainer:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Rayagonda Kokatanur <rayagonda.kokatanur@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: Add binding doc for iProc IDM device

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 6:00 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2019 3:50 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 05:09:34PM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/5/19 4:09 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>> On 12/2/19 3:31 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
> >>>> Add binding document for iProc based IDM devices.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
> >>>
> >>> Looks good to me, it's 2019, nearly 2020, maybe make this a YAML
> >>> compatible binding since it is a new one?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry I am not aware of this YAML requirement until now.
> >>
> >> Is this a new requirement that new DT binding document should be made with
> >> YAML format?
> >
> > The format has been in place in the kernel for a year now and we've
> > moved slowly towards it being required. If you're paying that little
> > attention to upstream, then yes it's definitely required so someone else
> > doesn't get stuck converting your binding later.
> >
> > BTW, I think all but RPi chips still need their SoC/board bindings
> > converted. One of the few not yet converted...
>
> Is there something more to do than what Stefan did here:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ab06837dd269b600396b298e9f4678d02b11b71d

No, that's it.

> we could convert other Broadcom SoCs, and there, just found another
> weekend project!
> --
> Florian