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]
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:35:07 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com, mail@...chuod.ie,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Cc:     linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: gpio: mpfs-gpio: allow parsing of hog child
 nodes.

On 25/08/2022 15:30, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 25/08/2022 13:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 20/08/2022 23:41, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>>
>>> The SD card and eMMC on PolarFire SoC based dev boards are sometimes
>>> statically muxed using a GPIO. To facilitate this, enable gpio-hog
>>> child node properties.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>> ---
>>>   .../bindings/gpio/microchip,mpfs-gpio.yaml     | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/microchip,mpfs-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/microchip,mpfs-gpio.yaml
>>> index 110651eafa70..6704a7a52cd0 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/microchip,mpfs-gpio.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/microchip,mpfs-gpio.yaml
>>> @@ -44,6 +44,24 @@ properties:
>>>
>>>     gpio-controller: true
>>>
>>> +patternProperties:
>>> +  "^.+-hog(?:-[0-9]+)?$":
>>
>> What is this pattern about: "(?:" ?
> 
> Me being a pedant I suppose. "()" is a capture while "(?:)" is a match.
> However, it does seem like json-schema suggests using "()":
> https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/regular_expressions.html
> 
> I don't mind & neither does the schema checker.

Use what existing sources are doing, so "^.+-hog(-[0-9]+)?$"

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ