linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] dt-bindings: iio: Add bindings for sx9310 sensor

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: <159648122347.1360974.1094560524092762187@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 03 Aug 2020 12:00:23 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Daniel Campello <campello@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] dt-bindings: iio: Add bindings for sx9310 sensor

Quoting Jonathan Cameron (2020-08-01 08:06:39)
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:48:38 -0600
> Daniel Campello <campello@...omium.org> wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000000..5739074d3592fe
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/semtech,sx9310.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
[...]
> > +
> > +  "#io-channel-cells":
> > +    const: 1
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg
> > +  - "#io-channel-cells"
> 
> Missed this in earlier review (only noticed when I saw whilst santity
> checking earlier versions.
> 
> Fairly sure we should only need #io-channel-cells if we have
> a consumer of a channel somewhere else in DT.  So it's not
> required as far as I can see.
> 

This is mostly a decision for Rob to make, but I would make it required
because the device is always an io channel provider. It may be that it
isn't providing anything in the DT to something else in the DT but it is
providing this information somewhere so always having to spell that out
is simple and doesn't hurt.