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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:45:16 -0700 From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> Cc: Rajesh Patil <rajpat@...eaurora.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, msavaliy@....qualcomm.com, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, satya priya <skakit@...eaurora.org>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 1/8] dt-bindings: spi: Add sc7280 support Hi, On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:37 PM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 17:46:11 +0530, Rajesh Patil wrote: > > Add compatible for sc7280 SoC. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rajesh Patil <rajpat@...eaurora.org> > > Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> > > --- > > Change in V10: > > - As per Stephen's comments, > > sorted compatible names in alphabet order > > > > Changes in V9: > > - No changes > > > > Changes in V8: > > - As per Doug's comments, added "qcom,sc7280-qspi" compatible > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qcom-qspi.yaml | 5 ++++- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the > following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is > incorrect. These may not be new warnings. > > Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check. > This will change in the future. > > Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1531702 > > > spi@...c000: compatible:0: 'qcom,qspi-v1' is not one of ['qcom,sc7280-qspi', 'qcom,sdm845-qspi'] > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1-lte.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r3.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r3-lte.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-limozeen.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-limozeen-nots.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-limozeen-nots-r4.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r0.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r1.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r1-kb.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r1-lte.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3-kb.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor-r3-lte.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r1.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r1-lte.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r2.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r2-lte.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r3.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom-r3-lte.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-r1.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-r1-lte.dt.yaml > > spi@...c000: compatible: ['qcom,qspi-v1'] is too short > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-idp.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1.dt.yaml > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1-lte.dt.yaml Right. I mentioned this in earlier review feedback and Rajesh said he'd do a follow-up patch to add sc7180 to the list here and also add the proper compatible in the sc7180.dtsi file. That's not a new error and (IMO) shouldn't block this patch from moving forward, though it should be nearly trivial to do. -Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists