linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwmon: (sht4x) Add device tree match table and document it

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: <20211120215148.GA1291159@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sat, 20 Nov 2021 13:51:48 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@...uge.net>
Cc:     Navin Sankar Velliangiri <navin@...umiz.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwmon: (sht4x) Add device tree match table and
 document it

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 02:36:39PM -0700, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-11-20 at 13:12 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/20/21 12:40 PM, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> > > This patch enables automatic loading of the sht4x module via a device
> > > tree table entry.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@...uge.net>
> > > ---
> > >   .../bindings/hwmon/sensirion,sht4x.yaml       | 50 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >   drivers/hwmon/sht4x.c                         |  7 +++
> > 
> > This needs to be two separate patches, one the devicetree change and the other
> > the source code change. DT maintainers need to be copied on the devicetree
> > patch.
> 
> Isn't that going to be confusing if one but not the other patch makes
> it into a repository?  Either you end up with an undocumented device
> tree property or you end up with documentation for an unsupported
> property.
> 
This is a trivial device, so that isn't really an issue. Otherwise,
if there are real bindings to approve, I would not accept the patch
making the code change unless the devicetree patch is approved,
and I would typically apply both together.

Anyway, those are the rules. Devicetree patches need to be sent
separately and approved by a devicetree maintainer. We should not
[have to] discuss rules here. If you are unhappy with it, I would
suggest to start a discussion on the devicetree mailing list and
suggest alternatives.

Thanks,
Guenter