linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: lan9662-otpc: document Lan9662 OTPC

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: <bb0331e7-2203-e8cb-70b6-5d43bf6a0aaf@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:37:56 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: lan9662-otpc: document Lan9662 OTPC

On 26/08/2022 10:31, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 08/26/2022 09:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
>>> +properties:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    items:
>>> +      - const: microchip,lan9662-otpc
>>> +      - const: microchip,lan9668-otpc
>>
>> Does not look like you tested the bindings. Please run `make
>> dt_binding_check` (see
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst for instructions).
>>
>> This won't work...
> 
> You are right. That was a silly mistake on my side.
> 
> It should be:
> ---
> properties:
>   compatible:
>     enum:
>       - microchip,lan9662-otpc
>       - microchip,lan9668-otpc
> ---
> Because what I want to achive is to be able to use any of
> string(microchip,lan9662-otpc or microchip,lan9668-otpc) as compatible
> string.
> 
> Or this is not the correct change?
> At least with this change dt_binding_check is happy.

This would be correct from syntax point of view, however maybe not the
best choice from functional point of view. How you wrote the driver and
bindings, these devices are compatible, so why this is not expressed as
compatible devices?

Best regards,
Krzysztof