linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binding for Sercomm parser

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, 9 Apr 2022 14:43:55 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Mikhail Zhilkin <csharper2005@...il.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     NOGUCHI Hiroshi <drvlabo@...il.com>, Karim <Karimdplay@...il.com>,
        M <x1@...root.org>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binding for
 Sercomm parser

On 09/04/2022 14:26, Mikhail Zhilkin wrote:
>>
>> In any case this requires vendor prefix.
> 
> I'm not sure that "scpart-id" is necessary here. "sercomm,sc-partitions"
> is necessary. I'm going to add vendor prefix in a separate patch. Is this
> ok?

Yes.

> 
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
> index 01430973ecec..65ff22364fb3 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
> @@ -1082,6 +1082,8 @@ patternProperties:
>      description: Sensirion AG
>    "^sensortek,.*":
>      description: Sensortek Technology Corporation
> +  "^sercomm,.*":
> +    description: Sercomm (Suzhou) Corporation
>    "^sff,.*":
>      description: Small Form Factor Committee
>    "^sgd,.*":
> --
> 
>>> +
>>> +required:
>>> +  - compatible
>> Missing reg.
> 
> reg isn't required. Parser can read partition offsets and sizes from
> SC PART MAP table. Or do you mean something else?  All is ok
> without reg definition in "Example" (except the warns that reg property
> is missing).

reg might not be required for current implementation but it is required
by devicetree for every node with unit address. Do you expect here nodes
without unit addresses?

>> Are you sure that you tested your bindings? You miss here address/size
>> cells and children, so you should have big fat warning.
>>
>> Plus your DTS example has error and does not compile...
> 
> Whole dts, for the real device (not for example), was tested many times.

Yeah, I did not speak about whole DTS, but bindings and example in the
bindings.

> Thank you for your feedback! I checked the another examples and there
> are no any warnings now. But I'm not yet sure that "properties" and
> "required" are correct.
> What do you think (or what else I have to read / check)?

There is no way you tested the bindings. There are for sure warnings
because it simply cannot be even compiled. The writing-schema.rst
describes how to test it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof