linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: cros-ec: Reorganize property availability

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:39:39 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Craig Hesling <hesling@...omium.org>,
        Tom Hughes <tomhughes@...omium.org>,
        Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
        Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: cros-ec: Reorganize property availability

Quoting Doug Anderson (2022-06-14 15:41:38)
>
> slight nit that from reading the subject of this patch I'd expect that
> it was a no-op. Just a reorganization / cleanup. In fact, it actually
> is more than a no-op. It enforces restrictions that should probably
> have always been enforced. I think it'd be better if the subject was
> something like "tighten property requirements" or something like that.

Sure. It sort of got out of control but I didn't update the commit
text to explain that we're enforcing reg and interrupts for i2c/spi
devices.

>
> slight nit that think it would be easier to understand this bottom
> section if you made the "SPI" and "RPMSG" sections more symmetric to
> each other. I think it would be easy to just change the SPI one to say
> "not SPI" instead of explicitly listing "i2c" and "rpmsg".

I had done that earlier but now it has an 'else' condition after commit
f412fe11c1a9 ("mfd: dt-bindings: google,cros-ec: Reference Samsung SPI
bindings"), so this kept the diff smaller.

>
> In any case, this overall looks pretty nice to me. My two requests are
> both pretty small nits, so either with or without fixing them:
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>

But if it gets a reviewed-by tag with more diff then I'll do it ;-)