linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/43] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: add missing child node schema

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YsUmVBXWPojz0woT@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 08:06:12 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/43] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: add missing child
 node schema

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 08:21:12PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/07/2022 14:11, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > Ok, so you want to flatten this by repeating also the register
> > descriptions?
> > 
> > That wouldn't hurt readability as much, but doing so would be more error
> > prone as it's easy to miss adding a new compatible in every group of
> > conditionals and there's no else clause to catch the mistake.
> > 
> > Right know the logic is
> > 
> > 	if dual-lane
> > 		items = 6
> > 	else
> > 		items = 3 or 4
> > 		if single-lane-exception
> > 			items = 3
> > 		else
> > 			items = 4
> > 
> > Flattening this gives
> > 
> > 	if dual-lane
> > 		items = 6
> > 	if single-lane-normal
> > 		items = 4
> > 	if single-lane-exception
> > 		items = 3
> > 
> > Which means that every compatible must now be listed in one of the
> > conditionals.
> 
> Yes, because it's explicit and easy to read. Handling compatibles in
> 'else' makes it opposite - one cannot use grep and cannot easily find
> what is actually covered by maxItems:4 (you need to check all 7
> compatibles to find what is not covered here).

I'll go with that then.

Johan