linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: memory: convert Samsung Exynos DMC to dtschema

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: <626d539a-ff39-ba98-0e92-4563d4e21681@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:35:59 +0100
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: memory: convert Samsung Exynos DMC to
 dtschema



On 8/16/21 9:32 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/08/2021 09:53, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 8/13/21 1:54 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Convert Samsung Exynos5422 SoC frequency and voltage scaling for
>>> Dynamic Memory Controller to DT schema format using json-schema.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
>>> ---
>>>    .../memory-controllers/exynos5422-dmc.txt     |  84 -----------
>>>    .../samsung,exynos5422-dmc.yaml               | 137 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>    MAINTAINERS                                   |   2 +-
>>
>> I'm not an expert in this DT scripts and why it complains. Maybe it
>> complains because the "samsung,exynos-ppmu" is defined in the .txt
>> file... (?)
>> Although, in general looks OK.
>>
>> Acked-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
> 
> I think the warning (triggered by DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m) can be ignored
> because it complains about compatible in example which is not present in
> the bindings. Usually it means someone wrote example not matching the
> bindings (e.g. a typo in compatible) but here it is on purpose.

Fair enough. Thanks for working on it!