linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: dts: rockchip: remove interrupts properties from pwm nodes rv1108.dtsi

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: <CAGb2v67s7a4GARfAnROKS40kaYQpdW_qWX=HX6GU09jV9wrbXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:15:35 +0800
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>
To:     Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>
Cc:     Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: dts: rockchip: remove interrupts properties
 from pwm nodes rv1108.dtsi

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:11 PM Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com> wrote:
>
> A test with the command below gives this error:
>
> /arch/arm/boot/dts/rv1108-evb.dt.yaml:
> pwm@...80000: 'interrupts' does not match any of the regexes:
> 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
>
> "interrupts" is an undocumented property, so remove them
> from pwm nodes in rv1108.dtsi.
>
> make ARCH=arm dtbs_check
> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-rockchip.yaml
>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>

Given that the interrupts were specified, meaning they are wired up in hardware,
shouldn't the solution be to add the interrupts property to the binding instead?

After all, the device tree describes the actual hardware, not just what the
implementations need.

ChenYu