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]

Message-ID: <73607ee6-a6bc-1f18-1dc1-d3e916f0e8ae@linaro.org>
Date:   Sun, 10 Apr 2022 10:14:46 +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 20:04, Mikhail Zhilkin wrote:
> On 4/9/2022 3:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>>>> +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?
> Only "partitions" node has no unit address.

This confused me. Do you have a child node named "partitions"?

> All subnodes  have unit
> addresses and therefore have to have reg property. 

So all of them need reg.

> I've just realized
> that "fixed-partitions.yaml" is almost my case. It looks like I can
> copy'n'paste  "required" and "*properties".
> Do you mind if I don't reinvent the wheel and reuse this good
> practice?

Re-using proper stuff is good, but just don't blindly copy. You need
still compatible and reg in required properties.

Best regards,
Krzysztof