linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: uniphier: Add child node definitions to describe pin mux and configuration

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: <138d4e8f-b63e-8118-2d66-23384af9cc6d@socionext.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Nov 2021 16:32:24 +0900
From:   Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: uniphier: Add child node
 definitions to describe pin mux and configuration

On 2021/11/03 5:57, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:46:39AM +0900, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>> In arch/arm/boot/dts/uniphier-pinctrl.dtsi, there are child nodes of
>> pinctrl that defines pinmux and pincfg, however, there are no rules about
>> that in dt-bindings.
>>
>> 'make dtbs_check' results an error with the following message:
>>
>>     pinctrl: 'ain1', 'ain2', 'ainiec1', 'aout', 'aout1', 'aout2', ...
>>     ... 'usb2', 'usb3' do not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
>>
>> To avoid this issue, add the rules of pinmux and pincfg in each child node
>> and grandchild node.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Replace additionalProperties with unevaluatedProperties
>> - Add additionalProperties for child and grandchild nodes
>>
>>   .../pinctrl/socionext,uniphier-pinctrl.yaml        | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/socionext,uniphier-pinctrl.yaml
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/socionext,uniphier-pinctrl.yaml
>> index a804d9bc1602..7e504e003181 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/socionext,uniphier-pinctrl.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/socionext,uniphier-pinctrl.yaml
>> @@ -26,10 +26,58 @@ properties:
>>         - socionext,uniphier-pxs3-pinctrl
>>         - socionext,uniphier-nx1-pinctrl
>>   
>> +additionalProperties:
>> +  type: object
>> +
>> +patternProperties:
>> +  "^.*$":
>> +    if:
>> +      type: object
>> +    then:
>> +      allOf:
> 
> All of the above should be:
> 
> additionalProperties:
>    type: object
>    allOf:
>    ...

I see. I'll rewrite it instead of "patternProperties".

> 
>> +        - $ref: pincfg-node.yaml#
>> +        - $ref: pinmux-node.yaml#
>> +
>> +      properties:
>> +        phandle: true
>> +        function: true
>> +        groups: true
>> +        pins: true
>> +        bias-pull-up: true
>> +        bias-pull-down: true
>> +        bias-pull-pin-default: true
>> +        drive-strength: true
>> +
>> +      additionalProperties:
>> +        type: object
>> +
>> +      patternProperties:
>> +        "^.*$":
>> +          if:
>> +            type: object
>> +          then:
>> +            allOf:
>> +              - $ref: pincfg-node.yaml#
>> +              - $ref: pinmux-node.yaml#
>> +
>> +            properties:
>> +              phandle: true
>> +              function: true
>> +              groups: true
>> +              pins: true
>> +              bias-pull-up: true
>> +              bias-pull-down: true
>> +              bias-pull-pin-default: true
>> +              drive-strength: true
>> +
>> +            unevaluatedProperties: false
>> +
>> +      unevaluatedProperties: false
>> +
>>   required:
>>     - compatible
>>   
>> -additionalProperties: false
>> +unevaluatedProperties: false
> 
> Drop +unevaluatedProperties.

I understand that "additionalProperties" has already been used at the top
level, so this "unevaluatedProperties" is unnecessary.

For the same reason, "unevaluatedProperties" at the child node is also unnecessary.

I think "unevaluatedProperties" at the grandchild node should be left because
the grandchild node doesn't have "additionalProperties".


additionalProperties:
   type: object
   allOf:
     ...
     additionalProperties:
       type: object
       allOf:
         ...
         unevaluatedProperties: false
     [X]
[X]

Thank you,

---
Best Regards
Kunihiko Hayashi