linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: ingenic: correct unit node address

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: <20220318084207.GA6652@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:42:07 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: ingenic: correct unit node address

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:52:59PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Unit node addresses should not have leading 0x:
> 
>   Warning (unit_address_format): /nemc@...10000/efuse@...eth-mac-addr@...2: unit name should not have leading "0x"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
> ---
>  arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/jz4780.dtsi | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/jz4780.dtsi b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/jz4780.dtsi
> index 3f9ea47a10cd..b998301f179c 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/jz4780.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/jz4780.dtsi
> @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ efuse: efuse@d0 {
>  			#address-cells = <1>;
>  			#size-cells = <1>;
>  
> -			eth0_addr: eth-mac-addr@...2 {
> +			eth0_addr: eth-mac-addr@22 {
>  				reg = <0x22 0x6>;
>  			};
>  		};
> -- 
> 2.32.0

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]