linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/18] MIPS: DTS: jz4780: fix tcu timer as reported by dtbscheck

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 15:30:06 +0200
From:   "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] MIPS: DTS: jz4780: fix tcu timer as reported by
 dtbscheck



> Am 09.04.2022 um 15:22 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>:
> 
> On 09/04/2022 15:18, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> 
>> Well, again, my assumption is that bindings and .yaml files formally describe the actual
>> hardware components. And they have been reviewed.
> 
> The bindings try to describe it. They are pretty often incomplete or
> might have mistakes.

Indeed they have. But what If I have found that they are right. Why should I comment on that?
It should at least be the default assumption.

> The true reason of doing a change is not that some
> tool tells you "do like this". The true reason is because the change
> properly describes hardware.
> 
>> 
>> So they have a higher level of authority than any current driver or .dts implementation.
>> Unless there is evidence that the bindings are wrong.
> 
> This is just a tool, not an authority.
> 
>> I.e. if the bindings feel right why is there a need to argue for that?
> 
> Because doing things "just because bindings told me" hides the true
> explanation and makes the code review, code management more difficult.

Well, I always wonder why schemas were done that way they were done
since their introduction. If I would write down commetns every time nobody
would be happy...

> Later person will look at this and wonder why this was done like this.
> If you write "because some tool me" this is not a good help. But if you
> write "because hardware is like this exactly" this is proper comment.
> 
>> 
>> It is like test-driven development model. There you have to write code that passes
>> the tests. Not argue against the tests.
> 
> Again, don't focus on the tool... Tool is just a tool...

A tool I can't ignore because Rob's robot tells me it is "the truth"...

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus