linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: mediatek: Make l1tcm reg exclusive to mt819x

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: <CA+Px+wXQjys8xvTSSJkLXoGp4yQnANbKWBtfuxiYi0UX6DH0jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 10:27:18 +0800
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...gle.com>
To:     Nícolas F. R. A. Prado 
        <nfraprado@...labora.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, kernel@...labora.com,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@...iatek.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: mediatek: Make l1tcm reg
 exclusive to mt819x

On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 5:32 AM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
<nfraprado@...labora.com> wrote:
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          enum:
> +            - mediatek,mt8192-scp
> +            - mediatek,mt8195-scp
> +    then:
> +      properties:
> +        reg:
> +          minItems: 3
> +          maxItems: 3
> +        reg-names:
> +          items:
> +            - const: sram
> +            - const: cfg
> +            - const: l1tcm

"l1tcm" should be optional.  Does it make more sense by using "minItems: 2"?