linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] CHROMIUM: arm64: dts: qcom: Add sc7180-gelarshie

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: <CAD=FV=UjyLofXZqnj=bL89fza5JS6O5Np9W-A4V4WK+na0hdrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:48:57 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Mars Chen <chenxiangrui@...qin.corp-partner.google.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CHROMIUM: arm64: dts: qcom: Add sc7180-gelarshie

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:25 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 30/03/2022 11:09, Mars Chen wrote:
> > Initial attempt at Gelarshie device tree.
> >
> > BUG=b:225756600
> > TEST=emerge-strongbad chromeos-kernel-5_4
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mars Chen <chenxiangrui@...qin.corp-partner.google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile             |   1 +
> >  .../dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie-r0.dts  |  15 +
> >  .../dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie.dtsi    | 304 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 320 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie-r0.dts
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie.dtsi
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile
> > index f9e6343acd03..cf8f88b065c3 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile
> > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)     += sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1.dtb
> >  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)      += sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r1-lte.dtb
> >  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)      += sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r3.dtb
> >  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)      += sc7180-trogdor-coachz-r3-lte.dtb
> > +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)      += sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie-r0.dtb
> >  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)      += sc7180-trogdor-homestar-r2.dtb
> >  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)      += sc7180-trogdor-homestar-r3.dtb
> >  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM)      += sc7180-trogdor-homestar-r4.dtb
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie-r0.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie-r0.dts
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..027d6d563a5f
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie-r0.dts
> > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> > +/*
> > + * Google Gelarshie board device tree source
> > + *
> > + * Copyright 2022 Google LLC.
> > + */
> > +
> > +/dts-v1/;
> > +
> > +#include "sc7180-trogdor-gelarshie.dtsi"
> > +
> > +/ {
> > +     model = "Google Gelarshie (rev0+)";
> > +     compatible = "google,gelarshie", "qcom,sc7180";
>
> Missing bindings. Please document the compatible.

I'm actually kinda curious: is there really a good reason for this? I
know I haven't been adding things to
`Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml` for Qualcomm
Chromebooks.  Ironically, it turns out that the script I typically use
to invoke checkpatch happens to have "--no-tree" as an argument and
that seems to disable this check. Doh!

That being said, though, I do wonder a little bit about the value of
enumerating the top-level compatible like this in a yaml file.
Certainly the yaml schema validation in general can be quite useful,
but this top-level listing seems pure overhead. I guess it makes some
tools happy, but other than that it seems to provide very little
value...

-Doug