linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 13/16] arm64: dts: rockchip: fix compatible string rk3328 cru node

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:   Sat, 2 Apr 2022 18:53:31 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>, heiko@...ech.de,
        zhangqing@...k-chips.com
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, mturquette@...libre.com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/16] arm64: dts: rockchip: fix compatible string
 rk3328 cru node

On 02/04/2022 16:36, Johan Jonker wrote:
> The rockchip,rk3328-cru.txt file was converted to YAML.
> A DT test of the rk3328 cru node gives notifications regarding
> the compatible string. Bring it in line with the binding by
> removing some unused fall back strings.

I explained to you on your v1, syscon is not a fallback compatible.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
> index 9c76c288b..8ceac0388 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3328.dtsi
> @@ -756,7 +756,7 @@
>  	};
>  
>  	cru: clock-controller@...40000 {
> -		compatible = "rockchip,rk3328-cru", "rockchip,cru", "syscon";

Please do not resend the same patch without changes and without
finishing the discussion. This looks wrong (and external references you
gave support this). What does this resend means? Discussion is over?

Best regards,
Krzysztof