linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/13] ARM: dts: stm32: fix DSI port node on STM32MP15

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: <5f12a950-ec62-89b4-e22f-4b4a84048f8f@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 15:16:55 +0200
From:   Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
        Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        Marcin Sloniewski <marcin.sloniewski@...il.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] ARM: dts: stm32: fix DSI port node on STM32MP15

Hello Arnd,

On 19.04.21 15:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Alexandre TORGUE
> <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com> wrote:
>> On 4/15/21 12:43 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> I think my rationale for the patch above was sound, so I think the checker
>>> taking offense at the DSI cells here should be considered a false positive.
>>
>> If it's a "false positive" warning then we need to find a way to not
>> print it out. Else, it'll be difficult to distinguish which warnings are
>> "normal" and which are not. This question could also be applied to patch[3].
>>
>> Arnd, Rob what is your feeling about this case ?
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but I would just
> not apply this one for 5.13 in this case. Rob, Alexandre, please
> let me know if I should apply the other patches before the
> merge window, I usually don't mind taking bugfixes late before the
> merge window, but I still want some level of confidence that they
> are actually correct.
> 
> Ahmad, if you feel strongly about this particular issue, would you like
> to suggest a patch for the checker?

The check is certainly useful. If it's not feasible to fix the checker (e.g.
because it analyzes standalone DTSIs), I am fine with reverting my commit
with an indication that this is to avoid triggering a dt-validate false
positive.

I am not familiar with dt-validate's inner workings to offer a patch.

Cheers,
Ahmad

> 
>         Arnd
> 

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |