linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: Correct GV11B GPU register sizes

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_JsqLzzWAmJ-hwgxZv6utpiGnsVTWvWjgV+Gn0L8XRVFBxGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:34:28 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Cc:     Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: Correct GV11B GPU register sizes

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:52 AM Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 05:13:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:18:42 +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > Commit 90a09178f309 ("dt-bindings: Add documentation for GV11B GPU")
> > > added the GV11B GPU device-tree bindings information but incorrectly
> > > added an additional 0 to the size of the addresses in the example.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 90a09178f309 ("dt-bindings: Add documentation for GV11B GPU")
> > > Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/nvidia,gk20a.txt | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > Applied, thanks!
> >
> > But really, it's just an example and rather than fix trivial things in
> > txt bindings, convert them to schema please.
>
> The conversion to schema of this binding was part of a series I sent out
> earlier this year converting a bunch of Tegra-related bindings. At the
> time you had requested that rather than converting one binding after
> another it might be easier to review if whole directories were converted
> at a time.

That's largely just because the issues tend to be the same (both doing
the conversion and reviewing it).

> I've been struggling to find time to do so, so I wonder if you'd prefer
> me to send out that series again, or perhaps in smaller chunks? That
> sounds better than not doing any conversions at all because I lack the
> time to do whole directories at once.

The whole series is fine.

Rob