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]
Date:   Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:39:16 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
Cc:     ~okias/devicetree@...ts.sr.ht, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: display: bridge: document Toshiba TC358768
 cells and panel node

15.12.2021 18:27, David Heidelberg пишет:
> Properties #address-cells and #size-cells are valid.
> The bridge node can also contains panel node.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
> ---
>  .../bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358768.yaml      | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358768.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358768.yaml
> index eacfe7165083..3186d9dffd98 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358768.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/toshiba,tc358768.yaml
> @@ -69,6 +69,16 @@ properties:
>        - port@0
>        - port@1
>  
> +  '#address-cells':
> +    const: 1
> +
> +  '#size-cells':
> +    const: 0
> +
> +patternProperties:
> +  "^panel@[0-3]$":
> +    $ref: ../panel/panel-common.yaml

The panel is always fixed to port 1, isn't it? Shouldn't it be just
port@1 here?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ