linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: dt-bindings: renesas,rsnd: switch to yaml base Documentation

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: <87tv3ksryd.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Date:   21 Feb 2020 09:30:04 +0900
From:   Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: dt-bindings: renesas,rsnd: switch to yaml base Documentation


Hi Rob

Thank you for your feedback

> > This needs clock array. Like this
> >
> >         clock-frequency = <12288000 11289600>;
> 
> Sorry, but the type is already defined in the spec. You'll still get
> warnings from the common schema and you can't override that here.
> 
> Not sure what to suggest. Leave it with a fixme or move to
> assigned-clocks-rates instead?

As you know, I'm not familiar with yaml base Documentation :/
I want leave it as your fixme if possible.

> > > > +  # For multi OF-graph
> > > > +  ports:
> > > > +    description: multi OF-Graph subnode
> > > > +    type: object
> > > > +    patternProperties:
> > > > +      "port(@.*)?":
(snip)
> > > > +        $ref: "#properties/port"
> > >
> > > Would be more simple to just always have 'ports'.
> >
> > Having "ports" or "port" are case-by-case, not always.
> 
> Why?
> 
> This:
> 
> port {};
> 
> and this:
> 
> ports {
>   port {};
> };
> 
> Are treated the same. It's perfectly valid to have 'ports' with a single port.

Yeah, if it needs only 1 port.
If I'm not misunderstanding, We are using it as

	ports {
		port@0 {
			endpoint {}
		};
		port@1 {
			endpoint {}
		};
		....
	};

or simply

	port {
			endpoint {}
	};

And here, sometimes, "port" and "endpoint" both need "reg".

Thank you for your help !!
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto